How to improve the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis in pain management in patients with pancreatic cancer: analysis in a single center. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2014;24:31-35. [PMID: 24487155 PMCID: PMC4196780 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0000000000000032]

A meta-analysis on the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography for treatment of pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of Endoscopic Ultrasonography (EUS) for the treatment of pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were searched from the inception of the databases to June 2022. RevMan 5.3.0 software was utilized for data analysis. In total, 13 self-descriptive studies, which enrolled 382 patients, were finally included.

RESULTS

It was revealed that EUS for the treatment of pancreatic cancer exhibited a lower incidence of adverse reactions (Relative Risk Ration [RR = 0.23], 95 % Confidence interval [95 % CI 0.23-0.23]), a higher success rate (RR = 0.90, 95 % CI 0.90-0.90), and a low failure rate (RR = 0.06, 95 % CI 0.06-0.06). Moreover, EUS-guided Celiac Plexus Neurolysis (EUS-CPN) not only significantly relieved pancreatic cancer patients' pain (RR = 0.83, 95 % CI 0.83-0.83), but also significantly eliminated pain in some patients (RR = 0.09, 95 % CI 0.09-0.09). The effects of EUS on pancreatic cancer treatment were satisfactory, and few adverse reactions were found.

CONCLUSION

Owing to the restricted sample size in this meta-analysis, primarily consisting of descriptive studies, it was imperative to conduct more rigorously designed, multi-center, long-term follow-up, larger sample, and Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) to validate the findings.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided celiac plexus neurolysis in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer: An update

Pancreatic cancer produces disabling abdominal pain, and the pain medical management for pancreatic cancer is often challenging because it mainly relies on the use of narcotics (major opioids). However, opioids often provide suboptimal pain relief, and the use of opioids can lead to patient tolerance and several side effects that considerably reduce the quality of life of pancreatic cancer patients. Endosonography-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) is an alternative for pain control in patients with nonsurgical pancreatic cancer; EUS-CPN consists of the injection of alcohol and a local anesthetic into the area of the celiac plexus to achieve chemical ablation of the nerve tissue. EUS-CPN via the transgastric approach is a safer and more accessible technique than the percutaneous approach. We have reviewed most of the studies that evaluate the efficacy of EUS-CPN and that have compared the different approaches that have been performed by endosonographers. The efficacy of EUS-CPN varies from 50% to 94% in the different studies, and EUS-CPN has a pain relief duration of 4–8 wk. Several factors are involved in its efficacy, such as the onset of pain, previous use of chemotherapy, presence of metastatic disease, EUS-CPN technique, type of needle or neurolytic agent used, etc. According to this review, injection into the ganglia may be the best technique, and a good visualization of the ganglia is the best predictor for a good EUS-CPN response, although more studies are needed. However, any of the 4 different techniques could be used to perform EUS-CPN effectively with no differences in terms of complications between the techniques, but more studies are needed. The effect of EUS-CPN on pain improvement, patient survival and patient quality of life should be evaluated in well-designed randomized clinical trials. Further research also needs to be performed to clarify the best time frame in performing a EUS-CPN.

EUS-CGN versus EUS-CPN in pancreatic cancer: A qualitative systematic review

BACKGROUND

Comparison between endosonographic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided celiac ganglia neurolysis (CGN) and EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) in pain management for pancreatic cancer has engendered controversy. To analyze the effectiveness and safety of EUS-CGN and figure out whether EUS-CGN is better than EUS-CPN, a qualitative systematic review was conducted.

METHODS

Studies were searched from Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE up to April 2020. We only included studies with full-text and in English and assessed study quality with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We recorded details of study design, participants, procedure performed, protocol of follow-up, pain response, quality of life, survival, and adverse events. The study was conducted under Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement 2009.

RESULTS

Five studies involving 319 patients were included. Short-term pain response rates ranged from 65.0% to 88.46% in EUS-CGN group and most studies reported its superiority over EUS-CPN. As for adverse events, the incidence of transient hypotension and gastrointestinal symptoms seemed comparable, while results of initial pain exacerbation varied among studies. Besides, EUS-CGN might provide a shorter survival.

CONCLUSION

EUS-CGN can be safely performed while it may shorten survival. In terms of short-term pain response, EUS-CGN is better than EUS-CPN while no conclusion of long-term pain control can be drawn.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided neurolysis in advanced pancreatic cancer: current status

Pancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis with patients often presenting with locally advanced, inoperable or metastatic disease. A significant proportion of patients have visceral pain due to perineural infiltration or coeliac plexus involvement by the tumour. This pain is difficult to control and may become refractory to conventional pain management. Therefore, coeliac plexus neurolysis (CPN) has been proposed to ablate the neuronal transmission pathway of pain permanently. CPN is recommended for those who have uncontrolled pain, are experiencing unacceptable opioid adverse effects or are receiving escalating doses of analgesics. It is not known whether CPN performed at diagnosis as the first-line treatment ('early') would impact short-term and long-term pain control and quality of life. NICE has recommended (2018) a randomised trial comparing early endoscopic ultrasound-guided coeliac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) with on-demand EUS-CPN in pancreatic cancer. In this context, we will review the current evidence on its clinical benefits.

Factors associated with successful response to neurolytic celiac plexus block in patients with upper abdominal cancer-related pain: a retrospective study

Background

Prior studies have reported that 40%-90% of the patients with celiac plexus-mediated visceral pain benefit from the neurolytic celiac plexus block (NCPB), but the predictive factors of response to NCPB have not been evaluated extensively. This study aimed to identify the factors associated with the immediate analgesic effectiveness of NCPB in patients with intractable upper abdominal cancer-related pain.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed of 513 patients who underwent NCPB for upper abdominal cancer-related pain. Response to the procedure was defined as (1) a decrease of ≥ 50% or ≥ 4 points on the numerical rating scale (NRS) in pain intensity from the baseline without an increase in opioid requirement, or (2) a decrease of ≥ 30% or ≥ 2 points on the NRS from the baseline with simultaneously reduced opioid consumption after NCPB. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with successful responses to NCPB.

Results

Among the 513 patients included in the analysis, 255 (49.8%) and 258 (50.2%) patients were in the non-responder and responder group after NCPB, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that diabetes (odds ratio [OR] = 0.644, P = 0.035), history of upper abdominal surgery (OR = 0.691, P = 0.040), and celiac metastasis (OR = 1.496, P = 0.039) were the independent factors associated with response to NCPB.

Conclusions

Celiac plexus metastases, absence of diabetes, and absence of prior upper abdominal surgery may be independently associated with better response to NCPB for upper abdominal cancer-related pain.

EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis for pain in pancreatic cancer patients - a meta-analysis and systematic review

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS- CPN) has been reported to be an effective way to help with pain in pancreatic cancer patient. The aim of our updated meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy of pain relief in patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent EUS guided neurolysis.

Methods:

Pooled proportions were calculated using both Mantel-Haenszel method (fixed effects model) and DerSimonian Laird method (random effects model). The heterogeneity among studies was tested using Cochran’s Q test based upon inverse variance weights. 

Results: Initial search identified 176 reference articles, of which 34 were selected and reviewed in detail. Sixteen studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in this analysis. The mean age of patients undergoing neurolysis was 56.31 ± 19.72 years. Number of males, N = 563 (57.4%), was higher than the number of females, N = 417 (42.5%). The pooled proportion of patients who showed pain relief with EUS-guided neurolysis was 71% (95% CI = 68–74). Bias calculated using Begg–Mazumdar was not significant (p = 0.8). In a subgroup analysis, when comparing the central and bilateral techniques, the pooled proportion of patients with pain relief was 66% (95% CI = 61–71) and 57% (95% CI = 48–67), respectively.

Conclusions: Our results show that EUS guided CPN could provide relief in as much as 70% of patients with central neurolysis technique having some edge over peripheral neurolysis. Further larger scale randomized controlled trials may further help to elaborate the efficacy of central vs peripheral neurolysis.

Pancreas Cancer-Associated Pain Management

Pain is highly prevalent in patients with pancreas cancer and contributes to the morbidity of the disease. Pain may be due to pancreatic enzyme insufficiency, obstruction, and/or a direct mass effect on nerves in the celiac plexus. Proper supportive care to decrease pain is an important aspect of the overall management of these patients. There are limited data specific to the management of pain caused by pancreatic cancer. Here we review the literature and offer recommendations regarding multiple modalities available to treat pain in these patients. The dissemination and adoption of these best supportive care practices can improve quantity and quality of life for patients with pancreatic cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Pain management is important to improve the quality of life and survival of a patient with cancer. The pathophysiology of pain in pancreas cancer is complex and multifactorial. Despite tumor response to chemotherapy, a sizeable percentage of patients are at risk for ongoing cancer-related pain and its comorbid consequences. Accordingly, the management of pain in patients with pancreas cancer can be challenging and often requires a multifaceted approach.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) technique and analgesic efficacy in patients with pancreatic cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Celiac Plexus Neurolysis (EUS-CPN) for the treatment of abdominal pain in pancreatic cancer can be administered in three different ways, depending on the site of needle insertion: central injection (CI), bilateral injection (BI) and celiac ganglia neurolysis (CGN). This meta-analysis aimed to (1) estimate the overall efficacy of the EUS-CPN; (2) compare the efficacy of each of the three techniques; and (3) investigate demographic and disease characteristics as potential predictors of treatment response.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies that reported the proportion of treatment responders to EUS-CPN overall, and according to the technique used. We performed a random effects meta-analysis of proportions, and meta-regression was used to estimate the association between technique and clinical characteristics on treatment response. The safety profile was reviewed through narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Overall response rate to EUS-CPN was 68% (95% CI 61%-74%) at week two and 53% (95% CI 45%-62%) at week four. There was no evidence of a significant difference in the response rates between the three techniques. Demographics and disease characteristics were not associated with treatment response. Serious complications have been reported for BI and CGN but not for CI. Moderate to high risk of bias was observed.

DISCUSSION

EUS-CPN is a useful adjunct to opioids in the management of pain. There is no evidence of a difference in the efficacy among the three techniques, however, CI is the only one for which serious complications have not been reported. Future research should focus on the appropriate timing of EUS-CPN (early versus on demand) and randomised comparison to establish the comparative efficacy of each technique.

Predictors of pain response after endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis for abdominal pain caused by pancreatic malignancy

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) has gained popularity as a minimally invasive approach and is currently widely used to treat pancreatic cancer-associated pain. However, response to treatment is variable.

AIM

To identify the efficacy of EUS-CPN and explore determinants of pain response in EUS-CPN for pancreatic cancer-associated pain.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 58 patients with abdominal pain due to inoperable pancreatic cancer who underwent EUS-CPN were included. The efficacy for palliation of pain was evaluated based on the visual analog scale pain score at 1 wk and 4 wk after EUS-CPN. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to explore predictors of pain response.

RESULTS

A good pain response was obtained in 74.1% and 67.2% of patients at 1 wk and 4 wk, respectively. Tumors located in the body/tail of the pancreas and patients receiving bilateral treatment were weakly associated with a good outcome. Multivariate analysis revealed patients with invisible ganglia and metastatic disease were significant factors for a negative response to EUS-CPN at 1 wk and 4 wk, respectively, particularly for invasion of the celiac plexus (odds ratio (OR) = 13.20, P = 0.003 for 1 wk and OR = 15.11, P = 0.001 for 4 wk). No severe adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

EUS-CPN is a safe and effective form of treatment for intractable pancreatic cancer-associated pain. Invisible ganglia, distant metastasis, and invasion of the celiac plexus were predictors of less effective response in EUS-CPN for pancreatic cancer-related pain. For these patients, efficacy warrants attention.

Pain Control with Splanchnic Neurolysis in Pancreatic Cancer Patients Unresponsive to Celiac Plexus Neurolysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In most instances of abdominal pain associated with pancreatic cancer, pain may become refractory to increasing doses of narcotics. Celiac plexus neurolysis represents an option; however, altered celiac plexus anatomy may render this treatment infeasible or ineffective, where splanchnic nerve neurolysis may represent another option. This study aimed to investigate the outcomes of splanchnic neurolysis in pancreatic cancer patients not responsive to celiac plexus neurolysis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Among all 84 patients who underwent celiac plexus neurolysis for pancreatic cancer pain during the study period, 34 patients did not respond and underwent splanchnic nerve neurolysis under fluoroscopic guidance and thus included in this retrospective study. Stage IV, III, and II disease was present in 38.2%, 47.1%, and 14.7% of the patients. During the study, 88.2% were receiving chemotherapy, whereas none were on radiotherapy. Data for daily narcotic dose equivalents and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores during outpatient visits at baseline, 2 weeks, 2 months, and 3 months were extracted.

RESULTS

Pain response rates were 76.5%, 84.4%, and 71.0%, at 2 weeks, 2 months, and 3 months, respectively. A significant and dramatic reduction was seen in VAS scores at 2 weeks (2.8±1.2 versus 6.3±1.1, p<0.001), and this significant decline was maintained for 3 months. Similarly, a significant and dramatic reduction was seen in daily narcotic need at 2 weeks (20.8±32.9 versus 93.4±86.2 mg, p<0.001), which was also maintained during the 3-month follow-up. The procedure was generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Findings of this study suggest that splanchnic neurolysis represents a durable and effective option for pain control in pancreatic cancer patients in whom the neurolysis of the celiac plexus is ineffective. However, these conclusions refer to only preliminary single-center results in a selected patient group; thus, further large studies are warranted.

EUS-guided celiac ganglion radiofrequency ablation versus celiac plexus neurolysis for palliation of pain in pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) is frequently performed, its efficacy for palliation of pain in pancreatic cancer is suboptimal. Recently, EUS-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) has been proposed as a palliative treatment option for pancreatic neoplasms. We performed a single-blind, randomized trial to compare the effectiveness of EUS-CPN and EUS-RFA for palliation of pain in pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Patients with abdominal pain because of locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer underwent EUS-CPN (n = 14) or EUS-RFA (n = 12). EUS-RFA was performed using a 1F monopolar probe passed via a 19-gauge FNA needle, by targeting the area of celiac plexus or visualized ganglia. Primary outcome was pain severity as measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire pancreatic cancer module (PAN26) administered pretreatment and at 2 and 4 weeks post-treatment. Secondary outcome measures were comparison of quality of life as determined by the PAN26 and EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire core questionnaire (C30) and opioid analgesia use between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Both the PAN26 (49.0 vs 57.0, P < .001) and C30 (51.9 vs 64.4, P = .032) revealed less pain for EUS-RFA than for EUS-CPN. Also, the EUS-RFA cohort experienced significantly less-severe GI symptoms, were able to plan more for the future, and had better emotional functioning compared with the EUS-CPN group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with EUS-CPN, EUS-RFA provided more pain relief and improved the quality of life for patients with pancreatic cancer. (Clinical trials registration number: NCT03152487.).

Pain in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A multidisciplinary, International guideline for optimized management

Abdominal pain is an important symptom in most patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Adequate control of pain is often unsatisfactory due to limited treatment options and significant variation in local practice, emphasizing the need for a multidisciplinary approach. This review contends that improvement in the management of PDAC pain will result from a synthesis of best practice and evidence around the world in a multidisciplinary way. To improve clinical utility and evaluation, the evidence was rated according to the GRADE guidelines by a group of international experts. An algorithm is presented, which brings together all currently available treatment options. Pain is best treated early on with analgesics with most patients requiring opioids, but neurolytic procedures are often required later in the disease course. Celiac plexus neurolysis offers medium term relief in a substantial number of patients, but other procedures such as splanchnicectomy are also available. Palliative chemotherapy also provides pain relief as a collateral benefit. It is stressed that the assessment of pain must take into account the broader context of other physical and psychological symptoms. Adjunctive treatments for pain, depression and anxiety as well as radiotherapy, endoscopic therapy and neuromodulation may be required in selected patients. There are few comparative studies to help define which combination and order of these treatment options should be applied. New pain therapies are emerging and could for example target neural transmitters. However, until better methods are available, management of pain should be individualized in a multidisciplinary setting to ensure optimal care.

Alleviating Pancreatic Cancer-Associated Pain Using Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Neurolysis

The most common symptom in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer is abdominal pain. This has traditionally been treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioid analgesics. However, these treatments result in inadequate pain control or drug-related adverse effects in some patients. An alternative pain-relief modality is celiac plexus neurolysis, in which the celiac plexus is chemically ablated. This procedure was performed percutaneously or intraoperatively until 1996, when endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided celiac plexus neurolysis was first described. In this transgastric anterior approach, a neurolytic agent is injected around the celiac trunk under EUS guidance. The procedure gained popularity as a minimally invasive approach and is currently widely used to treat pancreatic cancer-associated pain. We focus on two relatively new techniques of EUS-guided neurolysis: EUS-guided celiac ganglia neurolysis and EUS-guided broad plexus neurolysis, which have been developed to improve efficacy. Although the techniques are safe and effective in general, some serious adverse events including ischemic and infectious complications have been reported as the procedure has gained widespread popularity. We summarize reported clinical outcomes of EUS-guided neurolysis in pancreatic cancer (from the PubMed and Embase databases) with a goal of providing information useful in developing strategies for pancreatic cancer-associated pain alleviation.

Intraprocedural increase in heart rate during EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis: Clinically relevant or just a physiologic change?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) is performed frequently for palliation of pain in pancreatic cancer, response to treatment is variable. Although intraprocedural increases in heart rate during alcohol injection are observed frequently, their significance and relationship to treatment outcome are unknown. The objective of this study was to examine whether a correlation exists between an increase in heart rate and treatment outcomes in patients undergoing EUS-CPN for pain relief in pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational study of patients with abdominal pain caused by inoperable pancreatic cancer who underwent EUS-CPN. Heart rate change was defined as an increase of ≥15 beats per minute (bpm) for ≥30 seconds during alcohol injection. Main outcome measures were to compare pain, quality of life, opioid use, and survival between heart rate change and no-change groups.

RESULTS

Heart rate change was observed in 25 of 51 patients (49.0%) who underwent EUS-CPN over a 12-month period. Although the heart rate change cohort had significantly better adjusted scores for pain (60 vs 73; P = .042) and components of quality of life such as nausea and/or vomiting (65 vs 81; P = .004), financial difficulties (41 vs 57; P = .02), weight loss (45 vs 65; P = .007), and satisfaction with body image (52 vs 62; P = .035), there was no significant difference in postprocedural opioid use or survival between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Because patients with an increase in intraprocedural heart rate experienced significant improvement in pain and quality of life components, this observation must be further explored in order to improve the technique and outcomes of EUS-CPN.

Road map for pain management in pancreatic cancer: A review

Beside its poor prognosis and its late diagnosis, pancreatic cancer remains one of the most painful malignancies. Optimal management of pain in this cancer represents a real challenge for the oncologist whose objective is to ensure a better quality of life to his patients. We aimed in this paper to review all the treatment modalities incriminated in the management of pain in pancreatic cancer going from painkillers, chemotherapy, radiation therapy and interventional techniques to agents under investigation and alternative medicine. Although specific guidelines and recommendations for pain management in pancreatic cancer are still absent, we present all the possible pain treatments, with a progression from medical multimodal treatment to radiotherapy and chemotherapy then interventional techniques in case of resistance. In addition, alternative methods such as acupuncture and hypnosis can be added at any stage and seems to contribute to pain relief.

Pulse Transit Time as a Predictor of the Efficacy of a Celiac Plexus Block in Patients With Chronic Intractable Abdominal Pain

OBJECTIVE

There is no well-defined predictor of satisfactory pain relief after celiac plexus block (CPB) at the early stage of treatment. This study evaluated whether measurement of the electrocardiographic R-wave and the arrival time of the pulses at the toe pulse transit time (E-T PTT) can be an early predictor of pain response and success of CPB in patients with chronic intractable visceral pain.

METHODS

Twelve patients aged between 20 and 80 years who underwent CPB for treatment of chronic intractable cancer-related abdominal pain were included. A successful CPB was determined as a >50% decrease on the numerical rating scale measured 24 hours after the procedure. The E-T PTT at baseline and at 5, 10, 20, and 30 minutes after the injection of local anesthetic was measured as the time between the R-wave on the electrocardiogram and the peak point of the corresponding plethysmogram wave from the ipsilateral great toe. The change in the E-T PTT that was predictive of a successful CPB was analyzed using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

RESULTS

A CPB was successful in 9 of 12 cases; the dE-T PTT5/E-T PTT0 of the success group was 6.84%±5.04% versus 0.72%±0.78% in the failure group (P=0.021). The mean E-T PTTx differed significantly between timepoints (F=9.313, P=0.014) and between the success and failure groups (P<0.01). The best value of dE-T PTT5/E-T PTT0 indicating a successful CPB, estimated by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, was 2.30% (sensitivity 88.9%, specificity 100%). The area under the curve was 96% (95% confidence interval, 85.7%-100%).

CONCLUSIONS

Prolongation of E-T PTT at 5 minutes after CPB correlates closely with a significant analgesic effect.