Spinal cord stimulation alleviates intractable pain due to malignant pleural mesothelioma: a case report

Neurostimulation for the Treatment of Cancer-Induced Pain: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

Cancer pain is among the most prevalent and challenging symptoms in cancer care, with up to 95% of patients with late-stage cancer experiencing moderate-to-severe pain. Conventional pharmacologic treatments, including opioids, carry risks, and patients' conditions may be refractory to medical management or have contraindications. Neurostimulation techniques, such as spinal cord stimulation (SCS), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS), and peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), have shown promise in treating treatment-induced cancer pain. However, a comprehensive review focusing on these techniques for cancer-induced pain alone is necessary.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library data bases, focusing on studies from 2000 onward. Inclusion criteria included interventional and observational studies reporting on SCS, DRGS, and PNS in cancer-induced pain. Studies addressing treatment-induced pain, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and non-English studies were excluded. Data were extracted and evaluated using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.

RESULTS

The search yielded 831 references, with 24 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies focused on SCS, seven on PNS, and two cases on DRGS. SCS showed significant pain reduction, with an average decrease in numeric rating scale (NRS) scores from 8.0 to 2.2 over an average 8.4-month follow-up period. PNS also indicated substantial pain relief, with NRS scores decreasing from 8.29 to 3.04 over an average 5.2-month follow-up period. DRGS, although less studied, showed a reduction in NRS scores from 6.0 to 1.0 over an average 6.0-month follow-up period. SCS was associated with a significant reduction in opioid use, with average reported morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) change from 1152.2 mg to 739.7 mg over an average 5.0-month period, whereas PNS and DRGS had limited impact on opioid consumption, with no reported MEDD change.

CONCLUSIONS

Our scoping review synthesizes evidence on neurostimulation interventions for treating cancer-induced pain. Current evidence suggests that interventions such as SCS, DRGS, and PNS may provide clinically meaningful pain relief in patients with cancer-induced pain. Several studies also reported improvements in functionality and quality of life. However, the level of evidence is limited owing to the lack of prospective comparative studies, clinical and methodologic heterogeneity, and small sample sizes.

Treatment of chest wall pain syndrome from oncologic etiology with neuromodulation: A narrative review

Pain affects 50% of patients with cancer. Cancer-related pain occurs from tumor invasion as well as a sequela from cancer treatment. Despite numerous and often significant side effects, opioid, and neuropathic pain medications remain the mainstays of treatment for cancer-related pain. Neuromodulation-based treatment approaches including SCS, DRGS, and PNS are becoming increasingly common in the cancer pain landscape. In this narrative review, we present 11 case reports and case series that highlight the usefulness of neuromodulation for the treatment of chest wall pain from various cancer-related pathologies. Of the 34 patients included in these reports, 30 patients (88.25%) derived meaningful pain relief with the use of neuromodulation-based approaches. In addition, a majority of patients were able to reduce or eliminate their opioid requirements. This review provides early evidence that neuromodulation can be an effective treatment option for the treatment of cancer-related chest wall pain and set the backdrop for future clinical trials.

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.

Spinal Cord Stimulation to Treat Unresponsive Cancer Pain: A Possible Solution in Palliative Oncological Therapy

(1) Background: Treatment of cancer-related pain is still challenging, and it can be managed by both medical and interventional therapies. Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is a minimally invasive technique, and its use is rapidly increasing in the treatment of chronic pain. (2) Materials and Methods: Our study aims to perform a review of the pertinent literature about current evidences in cancer pain treatment by Spinal Cord Stimulation. Moreover, we created a database based on case reports or case series (18 studies) in the literature. We analyzed a clinical group of oncological patients affected by intractable pain undergoing SCS implantation, focusing on outcome. (3) Results: The analysis of the 18 included studies in our series has shown a reduction in painful symptoms in 48 out of 56 treated patients (87.51%); also 53 out of 56 patients (96.64%) have shown an improvement in their Quality of Life (QoL). (4) Conclusions: Spinal Cord Stimulation can be considered an efficient method in the treatment of cancer-related pain. However, literature regarding SCS for the treatment of cancer-related pain is largely represented by case reports and small case series, with no effective population studies or Randomized Controlled Trials demonstrating the efficacy and the level of evidence. Further prospective studies are needed.