Spinal cord stimulation as a treatment option for intractable neuropathic cancer pain

Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain treatment following sacral chordoma resection: illustrative case

BACKGROUND

Cancer-related or postoperative pain can occur following sacral chordoma resection. Despite a lack of current recommendations for cancer pain treatment, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has demonstrated effectiveness in addressing cancer-related pain.

OBSERVATIONS

A 76-year-old female with a sacral chordoma underwent anterior osteotomies and partial en bloc sacrectomy. She subsequently presented with chronic pain affecting both buttocks and posterior thighs and legs, significantly impeding her daily activities. She underwent a staged epidural SCS paddle trial and permanent system placement using intraoperative neuromonitoring. The utilization of percutaneous leads was not viable because of her history of spinal fluid leakage, multiple lumbosacral surgeries, and previous complex plastic surgery closure. The patient reported a 62.5% improvement in her lower-extremity pain per the modified Quadruple Visual Analog Scale and a 50% improvement in the modified Pain and Sleep Questionnaire 3-item index during the SCS trial. Following permanent SCS system placement and removal of her externalized lead extenders, she had an uncomplicated postoperative course and reported notable improvements in her pain symptoms.

LESSONS

This case provides a compelling illustration of the successful treatment of chronic pain using SCS following radical sacral chordoma resection. Surgeons may consider this treatment approach in patients presenting with refractory pain following spinal tumor resection.

Multidisciplinary Approaches: Cingulotomy in an Adult With Refractory Neuropathic Cancer-Related Pain

Background: Oral medications, intravenous medications, and invasive interventions are effective means of neuropathic pain control. In patients with pain refractory to more conventional approaches, cingulum bundle ablation is an alternative treatment modality not routinely considered by providers. Case Description: A 42-year-old woman with history of cervical cancer in remission presented with intractable left lower extremity pain. Workup revealed radiation-induced left iliopsoas osteosarcoma complicated by deep venous occlusion and thrombosis. Her pain remained intractable to pharmacologic therapies and more invasive pain control interventions. A multidisciplinary decision was made to pursue bilateral subcortical cingulum bundle radiofrequency ablation. After a technically successful surgery, the patient exhibited improved pain control as evidenced by a decline in her numerical rating scale of pain and analgesic medication requirements. Conclusion: Cancer-related neuropathic pain often requires treatment with multiple modalities involving multidisciplinary teams. In select refractory cases, cingulum bundle ablation may be an effective alternative treatment modality.

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: Beyond pain management

INTRODUCTION

The gate control theory of pain was the starting point of the development of spinal cord stimulation (SCS). We describe the indications for the treatment in pain management and other uses not related to pain.

DEVELOPMENT

There are currently several paradigms for SCS: tonic, burst, and high frequency. The main difference lies in the presence of paraesthesias. SCS is most beneficial for treating neuropathic pain. Patients with failed back surgery syndrome show the best response rates, although a considerable reduction in pain is also observed in patients with complex regional pain syndrome, diabetic neuropathy, radiculopathy, and low back pain without previous surgery. Phantom pain or pain related to cardiovascular or peripheral vascular disease may improve, although there is a lack of robust evidence supporting generalisation of its use. SCS also improves cancer-related pain, although research on this issue is scarce. Non-pain-related indications for SCS are movement disorders, spasticity, and sequelae of spinal cord injury. The main limiting factors for the use of SCS are mechanical complications and the cost of the treatment.

CONCLUSION

In its 50-year history, SCS has progressed enormously. The perfection of hardware and software may improve its effectiveness and reduce the rate of complications. Indications for SCS could include other diseases, and its use could be expanded, if the costs of the technology are reduced.

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.

Spinal Cord Stimulation as Treatment for Cancer and Chemotherapy-Induced Pain

Neuropathic pain is a rampant disease exacting a significant toll on patients, providers, and health care systems around the globe. Neuromodulation has been successfully employed to treat many indications including failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), phantom limb pain (PLP), radiculopathies, and intractable pelvic pain, among many others. Recent studies have also demonstrated efficacy for cancer-related pain and chemotherapy induced neuropathy with these techniques. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is the most commonly employed technique and involves implantation of percutaneous or paddle leads targeting the dorsal columns of the spinal cord with the goal of disrupting the pain signals traveling to the brain. Tonic, high frequency, and burst waveforms have all been shown to reduce pain and disability in chronic pain patients. Closed-loop SCS systems that automatically adjust stimulation parameters based on feedback (such as evoked compound action potentials) are becoming increasingly used to help ease the burden placed on patients to adjust their programming to their pain and position. Additionally, dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS) is a newer technique that allows for dermatomal coverage especially in patients with pain in up to two dermatomes. Regardless of the technique chosen, neuromodulation has been shown to be cost-effective and efficacious and should be given full consideration in patients with chronic pain conditions.

A Fully Implantable Miniaturized Liquid Crystal Polymer (LCP)-Based Spinal Cord Stimulator for Pain Control

Spinal cord stimulation is a therapy to treat the severe neuropathic pain by suppressing the pain signal via electrical stimulation of the spinal cord. The conventional metal packaged and battery-operated implantable pulse generator (IPG) produces electrical pulses to stimulate the spinal cord. Despite its stable operation after implantation, the implantation site is limited due to its bulky size and heavy weight. Wireless communications including wireless power charging is also restricted, which is mainly attributed to the electromagnetic shielding of the metal package. To overcome these limitations, here, we developed a fully implantable miniaturized spinal cord stimulator based on a biocompatible liquid crystal polymer (LCP). The fabrication of electrode arrays in the LCP substrate and monolithically encapsulating the circuitries using LCP packaging reduces the weight (0.4 g) and the size (the width, length, and thickness are 25.3, 9.3, and 1.9 mm, respectively). An inductive link was utilized to wirelessly transfer the power and the data to implanted circuitries to generate the stimulus pulse. Prior to implantation of the device, operation of the pulse generator was evaluated, and characteristics of stimulation electrode such as an electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) were measured. The LCP-based spinal cord stimulator was implanted into the spared nerve injury rat model. The degree of pain suppression upon spinal cord stimulation was assessed via the Von Frey test where the mechanical stimulation threshold was evaluated by monitoring the paw withdrawal responses. With no spinal cord stimulation, the mechanical stimulation threshold was observed as 1.47 ± 0.623 g, whereas the stimulation threshold was increased to 12.7 ± 4.00 g after spinal cord stimulation, confirming the efficacy of pain suppression via electrical stimulation of the spinal cord. This LCP-based spinal cord stimulator opens new avenues for the development of a miniaturized but still effective spinal cord stimulator.

Hydromorphone for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original Cochrane Review first published in Issue 10, 2016. For people with advanced cancer, the prevalence of pain can be as high as 90%. Cancer pain is a distressing symptom that tends to worsen as the disease progresses. Evidence suggests that opioid pharmacotherapy is the most effective of these therapies. Hydromorphone appears to be an alternative opioid analgesic which may help relieve these symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone in relieving cancer pain, as well as the incidence and severity of any adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers in November 2020. We applied no language, document type or publication status limitations to the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hydromorphone with placebo, an alternative opioid or another active control, for cancer pain in adults and children. Primary outcomes were participant-reported pain intensity and pain relief; secondary outcomes were specific adverse events, serious adverse events, quality of life, leaving the study early and death.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. We calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. We estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model and assessed risk of bias for all included studies. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created three summary of findings tables.

MAIN RESULTS

With four new identified studies, the review includes a total of eight studies (1283 participants, with data for 1181 participants available for analysis), which compared hydromorphone with oxycodone (four studies), morphine (three studies) or fentanyl (one study). All studies included adults with cancer pain, mean age ranged around 53 to 59 years and the proportion of men ranged from 42% to 67.4%. We judged all the studies at high risk of bias overall because they had at least one domain with high risk of bias. We found no studies including children. We did not complete a meta-analysis for the primary outcome of pain intensity due to skewed data and different comparators investigated across the studies (oxycodone, morphine and fentanyl). Comparison 1: hydromorphone compared with placebo We identified no studies comparing hydromorphone with placebo. Comparison 2: hydromorphone compared with oxycodone Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain (3 RCTs, 381 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief. Specific adverse events We found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 1.13 95% CI 0.74 to 1.73; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), vomiting (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.94; 3 RCTs, 622 participants), dizziness (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.44; 2 RCTs, 441 participants) and constipation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.19; 622 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with oxycodone, but the evidence is very uncertain. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. Comparison 3: hydromorphone compared with morphine Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) or VAS)) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain (2 RCTs, 433 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no clear evidence of a difference in the number of clinically improved participants, defined by 50% or greater pain relief rate, in the hydromorphone group compared with the morphine group, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Specific adverse events At 24 days of treatment, morphine may reduce constipation compared with hydromorphone, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.17; 1 RCT, 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found no clear evidence of a difference in nausea (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.30; 1 RCT, 200 participants), vomiting (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 200 participants) and dizziness (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.88; 1 RCT, 200 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence) in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with morphine, but the evidence is very uncertain. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life. Comparison 4: hydromorphone compared with fentanyl Participant-reported pain intensity We found no clear evidence of a difference in pain intensity (measured by numerical rating scale (NRS)) at 60 minutes in people treated with hydromorphone compared with those treated with fentanyl, but the evidence is very uncertain (1 RCT, 82 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Participant-reported pain relief We found no studies reporting participant-reported pain relief. Specific adverse events We found no studies reporting specific adverse events. Quality of life We found no studies reporting quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence of the benefits and harms of hydromorphone compared with other analgesics is very uncertain. The studies reported some adverse events, such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness and constipation, but generally there was no clear evidence of a difference between hydromorphone and morphine, oxycodone or fentanyl for this outcome. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of hydromorphone for cancer pain in comparison with other analgesics on the reported outcomes. Further research with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive outcome data collection is required.

Interventional Therapies for Pain in Cancer Patients: a Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pain is a prevalent symptom in the lives of patients with cancer. In light of the ongoing opioid epidemic and increasing awareness of the potential for opioid abuse and addiction, clinicians are progressively turning to interventional therapies. This article reviews the interventional techniques available to mitigate the debilitating effects that untreated or poorly treated pain have in this population.

RECENT FINDINGS

A range of interventional therapies and technical approaches are available for the treatment of cancer-related pain. Many of the techniques described may offer effective analgesia with less systemic toxicity and dependency than first- and second-line oral and parenteral agents. Neuromodulatory techniques including dorsal root ganglion stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation are increasingly finding roles in the management of oncologic pain. The goal of this pragmatic narrative review is to discuss interventional approaches to cancer-related pain and the potential of such therapies to improve the quality of life of cancer patients.

Current Perspectives on Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Cancer Pain

Cancer and cancer treatment-related chronic pain affect a significant number of patients. The etiology of this pain is diverse and may include nociceptive and/or neuropathic characteristics. Treatment is often multifactorial and may require advanced interventional techniques, such as spinal cord stimulation (SCS). This narrative review provides a thorough overview of cancer-related pain mechanisms and the use of SCS for cancer-related pain. Additionally, a review of the precautions that should be considered when caring for this patient population is provided with recommendations for safe care when utilizing these techniques.

Multidisciplinary management of metastatic spine disease: initial symptom-directed management

In the past 2 decades, a deeper understanding of the cancer molecular signature has resulted in longer longevity of cancer patients, hence a greater population, who potentially can develop metastatic disease. Spine metastases (SM) occur in up to 70% of cancer patients. Familiarizing ourselves with the key aspects of initial symptom-directed management is important to provide SM patients with the best patient-specific options. We will review key components of initial symptoms assessment such as pain, neurological symptoms, and spine stability. Radiographic evaluation of SM and its role in management will be reviewed. Nonsurgical treatment options are also presented and discussed, including percutaneous procedures, radiation, radiosurgery, and spine stereotactic body radiotherapy. The efforts of a multidisciplinary team will continue to ensure the best patient care as the landscape of cancer is constantly changing.

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Visceral Pain: Present Approaches and Future Strategies

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of successful neuromodulation strategies for managing chronic visceral pain lag behind what is now treatment of choice in refractory chronic back and extremity pain for many providers in the United States and Europe. Changes in public policy and monetary support to identify nonopioid treatments for chronic pain have sparked interest in alternative options. In this review, we discuss the scope of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for visceral pain, its limitations, and the potential role for new intradural devices of the type that we are developing in our laboratories, which may be able to overcome existing challenges.

METHODS

A review of the available literature relevant to this topic was performed, with particular focus on the pertinent neuroanatomy and uses of spinal cord stimulation systems in the treatment of malignant and nonmalignant gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and chronic pelvic pain.

RESULTS

To date, there have been multiple off-label reports testing SCS for refractory gastrointestinal and genitourinary conditions. Though some findings have been favorable for these organs and systems, there is insufficient evidence to make this practice routine. The unique configuration and layout of the pelvic pain pathways may not be ideally treated using traditional SCS implantation techniques, and intradural stimulation may be a viable alternative.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the prevalence of visceral pain, the application of neuromodulation therapies, a standard approach for other painful conditions, has received far too little attention, despite promising outcomes from uncontrolled trials. Detailed descriptions of visceral pain pathways may offer several clues that could be used to implement devices tailored to this unique anatomy.

Spinal cord stimulation in the management of neuropathic pain in cancer patients: case report

Introduction: Neuropathic pain is present in up to 40 % of all cancer patients. A considerable number of patients fail to achieve enough pain relief with conventional treatment, which is why therapeutic alternatives such as spinal cord stimulation should be considered. Case description and results: This is the case of a female patient with chronic neuropathic pain secondary to a partial femoral nerve injury sustained during resection and lymph node dissection surgery with curative intent for a large stage II cell squamous cell carcinoma T2N0M0, localized in the right popliteal fossa. The patient presented with difficult to manage chronic neuropathic pain, despite receiving multiple oral analgesics and nerve blocks. A medullary neurostimulator was implanted that relieved the patient’s pain intensity in up to 80%, in addition to improved function and quality of life. Conclusions: spinal cord stimulation is considered an effective neuromodulatory intervention which has shown satisfactory results in the treatment of various types of refractory chronic pain in cancer patients, including neuropathic pain.

Safety of Intranasal Ketamine for Reducing Uncontrolled Cancer-Related Pain: Protocol of a Phase I/II Clinical Trial

Background

Approximately 12 million Americans are affected with cancer. Of these, 53% experience pain at all stages of cancer. Pain may remain uncontrolled despite high-dose opioid therapy, and opioids have many well-documented harmful side effects. Intranasal ketamine has been shown to be effective in controlling breakthrough noncancer pain in a double-blind randomized control trial (DBRCT) by Carr et al in 2003 as well as to help with depression in a DBRCT by Lapidus et al in 2014. We seek to obtain preliminary data on the safety, feasibility, and utility of this novel technique for the treatment of uncontrolled cancer pain.

Objective

This study aimed to obtain preliminary data via a clinical trial addressing the safety, feasibility, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of intranasal ketamine. These initial findings will be applied to a subsequent trial to determine the effectiveness and associated toxicities of ketamine in a larger sample of cancer patients and to address the compelling need to identify new, successful management therapies for cancer pain.

Methods

This is an institutional review board– and investigational new drug–approved, prospective phase I/II trial to investigate the safety and use of intranasal ketamine in patients with uncontrolled pain related to cancer or cancer treatment. Informed consent will be obtained prior to all study procedures. All patients will be assigned to the same investigational treatment arm. After patient selection via inclusion/exclusion criteria, patients will be seen over 5 visits, with each visit conducted 2-7 days apart. Patients will be administered ketamine on visits 1-4 and monitored for 240 minutes with continuous pulse oximetry and regular blood pressure checks. Blood samples as well as patient-reported outcomes will be collected at set time points at baseline and after drug delivery. Patients will receive 10 mg intranasal ketamine on visit 1, 10 mg intravenous ketamine on visit 2, 30 mg intranasal ketamine on visit 3, and 50 mg intranasal ketamine on visit 4. On visit 5, an addition blood sample will be drawn.

Results

As of March 2019, enrollment is in progress, and a total of 7 subjects have completed the study. Enrollment is expected to be completed by April 2019. Final data analysis will commence soon after, and the results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2019.

Conclusions

If intranasal ketamine can be utilized for pain control in cancer patients, it could provide superior analgesia and better quality of life, without the risk of significant respiratory depression and constipation associated with opioid medications. These findings will be an important initial step toward testing the effectiveness of intranasal ketamine as a nonopioid medication for cancer pain and as potential maintenance outpatient therapy.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03146806; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03146806.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/12125

New Cancer Pain Treatment Options

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cancer pain is often incapacitating and discouraging to patients; is demoralizing to family members and care takers; and is taxing and difficult to subdue for the pain specialists. The consequences of implementing suboptimal treatment are far-reaching; therefore, effective treatment methods are in a great demand. The face of cancer pain management has changed in considerable ways, and interventional procedures have become an integral part of providing multimodal analgesia in cancer pain treatment. The goals of this review are to draw attention to the critical role that regional anesthetic nerve blocks and interventional pain management techniques play in treating malignancy-related pain and emphasize the benefits provided by the aforementioned treatment strategies.

RECENT FINDINGS

A large proportion of cancer patients continues to struggle with an inadequately treated pain despite a strict adherence to the WHO analgesic step ladder. The previous pain treatment algorithm has been modified to include peripheral neural blockade, neuro-destructive techniques, neuromodulatory device use, and intrathecal drug delivery systems. The accumulated evidence highlights the opioid-sparing qualities and other benefits afforded by these modalities: decreasing medication-induced side effects, reducing economic burden of poor analgesia, and overall improvement in quality of life of the patients afflicted with a painful neoplastic disease. The rising prevalence of cancer-related pain syndromes is paralleled by an unmatched growth of innovative treatment strategies. Modified WHO analgesic ladder represents one of the greatest paradigm shifts within the domain of oncologic pain treatment. The cancer patient population requires a prompt and liberal, albeit judicious, delivery of unorthodox pain treatment options freed from the rigid bonds of conventional guidelines and standard practices.

Interventional Treatments of Cancer Pain

Pain is a significant burden for patients with cancer and is particularly prevalent among those with advanced cancer. Appropriate interventional cancer pain therapies complement conventional pain management by reducing the need for systemic opioid therapy and its associated toxicity; however, these therapies are often underutilized. This article reviews techniques, indications, complications, and outcomes of the most common interventional approaches for the management of cancer-related pain. These approaches include intrathecal drug delivery, vertebral augmentation, neurolysis of the celiac, superior hypogastric and ganglion impar plexus', image-guided tumor ablation, and other less commonly performed but potentially beneficial interventions.

Hydromorphone for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Cancer pain is an important and distressing symptom that tends to increase in frequency and intensity as the cancer advances. For people with advanced cancer, the prevalence of pain can be as high as 90%. It has been estimated that 30% to 50% of people with cancer categorise their pain as moderate to severe, with between 75% and 90% of people with cancer experiencing pain that they describe as having a major impact on their daily life. Epidemiological studies suggest that approximately 15% of people with cancer pain fail to experience acceptable pain relief with conventional management. Uncontrolled pain can lead to physical and psychological distress and can, consequently, have a drastic effect on people's quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the analgesic efficacy of hydromorphone in relieving cancer pain, as well as the incidence and severity of any adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and clinical trials registers up to April 2016. There were no language, document type or publication status limitations applied in the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hydromorphone with placebo or other active pain medication for cancer pain in both adults and children. The four main outcomes selected have previously been identified as important to people with cancer; pain no worse than mild pain, and the impact of the treatment on consciousness, appetite and thirst. We did not consider physician-, nurse- or carer-reported measures of pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We used a random-effects model and assessed the risk of bias for all included studies. A meta-analysis was not completed on any of the primary outcomes in this review due to the lack of data. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies (604 adult participants), which compared hydromorphone to oxycodone (two studies) or morphine (two studies). Overall, the included studies were at low or unclear risk of bias, rated unclear due to unknown status of blinding of outcome assessment; we rated three studies at high risk of bias for potential conflict of interest. Data for 504 participants were available for analysis. We collected data on endpoint participant-reported pain intensity measured with a visual analogue scale (VAS) (mean ± standard deviation (SD): hydromorphone 28.86 ± 17.08, n = 19; oxycodone 30.30 ± 25.33, n = 12; scale from 0 to 100 with higher score indicating worse pain), and Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) 24 hours worst pain subscale (mean ± SD: hydromorphone 3.5 ± 2.9, n = 99; morphine 4.3 ± 3.0, n = 101, scale from 0 to 10 with higher score indicating worse pain). The data demonstrated a similar effect between groups with both comparisons. The pain intensity data showed that participants in all four trials achieved no worse than mild pain. There were several adverse events: some were the expected opioid adverse effects such as nausea, constipation and vomiting; others were not typical opioid adverse effects (for example, decreased appetite, dizziness and pyrexia, as shown in Table 1 in the main review), but generally showed no difference between groups. There were three deaths in the morphine group during the trial period, considered to be due to disease progression and unrelated to the drug. Three trials had over 10% dropout, but the reason and proportion of dropout was balanced between groups. The overall quality of evidence was very low mainly due to high risk of bias, imprecision of effect estimates and publication bias. There were no data available for children or for several participant-important outcomes, including participant-reported pain relief and treatment impact on consciousness, appetite or thirst.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicated little difference between hydromorphone and other opioids in terms of analgesic efficacy. Data gathered in this review showed that hydromorphone had a similar effect on participant-reported pain intensity as reported for oxycodone and morphine. Participants generally achieved no worse than mild pain after taking hydromorphone, which is comparable with the other drugs. It produced a consistent analgesic effect through the night and could be considered for use in people with cancer pain experiencing sleep disturbance. However, the overall quality of evidence was very low mainly due to risk of bias, imprecision of effect estimates and publication bias. This review only included four studies with limited sample size and a range of study designs. Data for some important outcomes, such as impact of the treatment on consciousness, appetite or thirst, were not available. Therefore, we were unable to demonstrate superiority or inferiority of hydromorphone in comparison with other analgesics for these outcomes. We recommend that further research with larger sample sizes and more comprehensive outcome data collection is required.

Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation (PNFS) as a Treatment Option for Intractable Radiation-Induced Facial Neuropathic Pain in a Survivor of Laryngeal Cancer: A Case Report

BACKGROUND

Treatment-related chronic neuropathic pain represents a major and increasing cause of discomfort in cancer survivors. Unfortunately, in approximately 10%-15% of cases, pain is scarcely relieved by opioids and common painkillers. Thus, alternative measures to manage pain have recently been adopted in these patients.

CASE DESCRIPTION

We report the case of a laryngeal cancer survivor who developed an intractable bilateral mandibular radiation-induced neuropathic pain syndrome. His pain was refractory to any pharmacological treatment, whereas the implant of bilateral subcutaneous facial electrodes led to the complete resolution of pain.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report in literature describing peripheral nerve field stimulation as a treatment option for intractable cancer treatment-related chronic neuropathic pain. Peripheral nerve field stimulation appears to be a safe and effective procedure.

Management of Postherniorrhaphy Chronic Neuropathic Groin Pain: A Role for Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation

Chronic neuropathic groin pain is a sequela of hernia surgery that occurs at unacceptably high rates, causing widespread impacts on quality of life. Although the medical community is beginning to recognize the role of surgical technique in the initiation and maintenance of postherniorrhaphy neuropathic pain, little information exists regarding pain management strategies for this condition. This review presents a summary of the pain condition state, its treatment options, and treatment recommendations. Both literature review and clinical experience were used to develop a proposed a treatment algorithm for the treatment of postherniorrhaphy pain. The development of chronic pain may be prevented via a number of perioperative measures. For pain that is already established, some surgical approaches including inguinal neurectomy can be effective, in addition to standard pharmacological treatments and local infiltrations. An unmet need may still exist with these options, however, leaving a role for neuromodulation for the treatment of intractable cases. A pain management algorithm for iterative interventions including stimulation of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) is described. It is expected that cross-disciplinary awareness of surgeons for nonsurgical pain management options in the treatment of chronic neuropathic postherniorrhaphy pain will contribute to better clinical outcomes.

Non-pharmacological treatment for neuropathic pain in children with cancer

Neuropathic pain (NP) associated with childhood cancer is currently a difficult problem to control. It is treated with drugs that not only fail to provide the expected improvements, but which also have side effects. Therefore, the main aim of this pilot study is to assess whether non-pharmacological treatments, Graded Motor Imagery (GMI) and Neural Mobilization (NM), have a positive effect on this pain, thus improving the associated comorbid factors and, consequently, the quality of life of the children. In an n = 6, the results after 4 weeks of treatment show a 10-point improvement in the pain threshold and a 3.1-point improvement in the perception of pain.

Spinal cord stimulation for cancer-related pain in adults

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 3, 2013. Cancer-related pain places a heavy burden on public health with related high expenditure. Severe pain is associated with a decreased quality of life in patients with cancer. A significant proportion of patients with cancer-related pain are under-treated. There is a need for more effective control of cancer-related pain. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) may have a role in pain management. The effectiveness and safety of SCS for patients with cancer-related pain is currently unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of SCS for cancer-related pain compared with standard care using conventional analgesic medication. We also appraised risk and potential adverse events associated with the use of SCS.

SEARCH METHODS

This is an update of a review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 3, 2013. The search strategy for the update was the same as in the original review. We searched the following bibliographic databases in order to identify relevant studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; EMBASE; and CBM (Chinese Biomedical Database) in October 2014. We also handsearched relevant journals. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared SCS with other interventions with regards to the effectiveness of pain management. We also planned to include cross-over trials that compared SCS with another treatment. We planned to identify non-randomised controlled trials but these would only be included if no RCTs could be found.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The literature search for the update of this review found 121 potentially eligible articles. The initial search strategy yielded 430 articles. By scrutinising titles and abstracts, we found 412 articles irrelevant to the analytical purpose of this systematic review due to different scopes of diseases or different methods of intervention (intrathecal infusion system; oral medication) or aims other than pain control (spinal cord function monitoring, bladder function restoration or amelioration of organ metabolism). The remaining 18 trials were reviewed as full manuscripts. No RCTs were identified. Fourteen sporadic case reports and review articles were excluded and four before-and-after case series studies (92 participants) were included. Two review authors independently selected the studies to be included in the review according to the prespecified eligibility criteria. A checklist for methodological quality of non-randomised controlled trials was used (STROBE checklist) and all review authors discussed and agreed on the inclusion of trials and the results of the quality assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

No new studies were identified for inclusion in this update of the review. Four before-and-after case series studies (a total of 92 participants) met our criteria for inclusion in the previous version of the review. All included trials adopted a visual analogue scale (VAS) to evaluate pain relief. Heterogeneity existed in terms of baseline characteristics, electrode and stimulator parameters, level of implantation and route of implantation; each trial reported data differently. In two trials, pain relief was achieved in 76% (48/63) of participants at the end of the follow-up period. In the third trial, pre-procedure VAS was 6 to 9 (mean 7.43 ); the one-month post-implant VAS was 2 to 4 (mean 3.07); the 12-month post-implant VAS was 1 to 3 (mean 2.67). In the fourth trial, the pre-procedure VAS was 6 to 9 (mean 7.07); 1 to 4 (mean 2.67) at one-month; 1 to 4 (mean 1.87) at 12 months. Analgesic use was largely reduced. The main adverse events were infection of sites of implantation, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, pain at the sites of electrodes, dislodgement of the electrodes, and system failure; however, the incidence in participants with cancer could not be calculated. Since all trials were small, non-randomised controlled trials, they carried high or unclear risk of all types of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the first publication of this review, no new studies were identified. Current evidence is insufficient to establish the role of SCS in treating refractory cancer-related pain. Future randomised studies should focus on the implantation of SCS in participants with cancer-related pain.

Recent advances in cancer pain management

Pain is the most feared symptom of cancer. New oncological cancer treatments are improving survival, but advanced cancer presents challenges that have not been seen before, often with pain that is very difficult to manage because of a recurrent tumour that is invading the central nervous system. In some of the older interventional techniques of destroying nerve pathways, expertise has diminished or has been deemed unnecessary with the development of specialist palliative care. Not all pain is managed adequately with the analgesic ladder. Knowledge of pain mechanisms, careful assessment and selection of the right technique at the right time will enhance cancer pain management. New techniques include intrathecal drug therapy, vertebroplasty, cordotomy, ultra-sound guided nerve blocks, neuromodulation and advances in drug therapies.

Surgical/radiological interventions for cancer pain

Pain is a major morbidity associated with cancer and up to 20% patients require invasive procedures for pain relief. Ablative techniques can be directed towards the spinal cord and brain to palliate pain or modify its perception. Anterolateral cordotomy, myelotomy, DREZotomy and cingulotomy are useful interventions for the management of refractory cancer pain. Advanced imaging modalities, including intraoperative computed tomography (CT) guidance, have increased safety and efficacy of these interventions. In this paper, authors review the recent literature regarding surgical interventions for the management of cancer pain.

Gastric electrical stimulation for abdominal pain in patients with symptoms of gastroparesis

Abdominal pain physiology may be better understood studying electrophysiology, histology, and symptom scores in patients with the symptoms of gastroparesis (Gp) treated with gastric electrical stimulation (GES). Ninety-five Gp patients' symptoms were recorded at baseline and during temporary and permanent GES. Gastric-emptying times and cutaneous, mucosal, and serosal electrogastrograms were obtained. S100-stained, full-thickness gastric biopsies were compared with autopsy controls. Sixty-eight patients reported severe pain at baseline. Severe pain patients' mean pain scores decreased with temporary GES from 3.62 to 1.29 (P < 0.001) and nonsevere pain from 1.26 to 0.67 (P = 0.01). With permanent GES, severe mean pain scores fell to 2.30 (P < 0.001); nonsevere pain changed to 1.60 (P = 0.221). Mean follow-up was 275 days. Mean cutaneous, mucosal, and serosal frequencies and frequency-to-amplitude ratios were markedly higher than literature controls. For patients with Gp overall and subdivided by etiology and severity of pain, S-100 neuronal fibers were significantly reduced in both muscularis propria layers. GES improved severe pain associated with symptoms of Gp. This severe pain is associated with abnormal electrogastrographic activity and loss of S100 neuronal fibers in the stomach's inner and outer muscularis propria and, therefore, could be the result of gastric neuropathy.

Gastric Electrical Stimulation for Abdominal Pain in Patients with Symptoms of Gastroparesis

Abdominal pain physiology may be better understood studying electrophysiology, histology, and symptom scores in patients with the symptoms of gastroparesis (Gp) treated with gastric electrical stimulation (GES). Ninety-five Gp patients’ symptoms were recorded at baseline and during temporary and permanent GES. Gastric-emptying times and cutaneous, mucosal, and serosal electrogastrograms were obtained. S100-stained, full-thickness gastric biopsies were compared with autopsy controls. Sixty-eight patients reported severe pain at baseline. Severe pain patients’ mean pain scores decreased with temporary GES from 3.62 to 1.29 ( P < 0.001) and nonsevere pain from 1.26 to 0.67 ( P = 0.01). With permanent GES, severe mean pain scores fell to 2.30 ( P < 0.001); nonsevere pain changed to 1.60 ( P = 0.221). Mean follow-up was 275 days. Mean cutaneous, mucosal, and serosal frequencies and frequency-to-amplitude ratios were markedly higher than literature controls. For patients with Gp overall and subdivided by etiology and severity of pain, S-100 neuronal fibers were significantly reduced in both muscularis propria layers. GES improved severe pain associated with symptoms of Gp. This severe pain is associated with abnormal electrogastrographic activity and loss of S100 neuronal fibers in the stomach's inner and outer muscularis propria and, therefore, could be the result of gastric neuropathy.

Neuromodulation and Palliative Medicine

The palliative care population is generally vulnerable to experiencing medication-induced adverse effects and drug–drug interactions. Neuromodulation may offer particular advantages over systemic medications in this population. Spinal cord stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation have long been utilized in efforts to provide analgesia for various painful conditions. More recently, deep brain stimulation/motor cortex stimulation has anecdotally been utilized for certain intractable pain states. Although brain electrical stimulation has not been adequately trialed or in some cases even tried at all for management of a variety of symptoms, it is conceivable that in the future it may be a potential therapeutic option in efforts to palliate various severe refractory symptoms (eg, intractable pain, nausea, dyspnea, delirium).

Spinal cord stimulation for cancer-related pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Cancer-related pain places a heavy burden on public health with related high expenditure. Severe pain is associated with a decreased quality of life in patients with cancer. A significant proportion of patients with cancer-related pain are under-treated.There is a need for more effective control of cancer-related pain. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) may have a role in pain management. The effectiveness and safety of SCS for patients with cancer-related pain is currently unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of SCS for cancer-related pain compared with standard care using conventional analgesic medication. We also appraised risk and potential adverse events associated with the use of SCS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following bibliographic databases in order to identify relevant studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Libary (from inception to 2012, Issue 6); MEDLINE; EMBASE; and CBM (Chinese Biomedical Database) (from inception to July, 2012). We also handsearched relevant journals.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared SCS with other interventions with regards to the effectiveness of pain management. We also planned to include cross-over trials that compared SCS with another treatment. We planned to identify non-randomised controlled trials but these would only be included if no RCTs could be found.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The initial search strategy yielded 430 articles. By scrutinising titles and abstracts, we found 412 articles irrelevant to the analytical purpose of this systematic review due to different scopes of diseases or different methods of intervention (intrathecal infusion system; oral medication) or aims other than pain control (spinal cord function monitoring, bladder function restoration or amelioration of organ metabolism). The remaining 18 trials were reviewed as full manuscripts. No RCTs were identified. Fourteen sporadic case reports and review articles were excluded and four before-and-after case series studies (92 participants) were included. Two review authors independently selected the studies to be included in the review according to the pre-specified eligibility criteria. A checklist for methodological quality of non-randomised controlled trials was used (STROBE checklist) and all review authors discussed and agreed on the inclusion of trials and the results of the quality assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

Four before-and-after case series studies (a total of 92 participants) met our criteria for inclusion. All included trials adopted a visual analogue scale (VAS) to evaluate pain relief. Heterogeneity existed in terms of baseline characteristics, electrode and stimulator parameters, level of implantation and route of implantation; data reporting was different among all trials. In two trials, pain relief was achieved in 76% (48/63) of patients at the end of the follow-up period. In the third trial, pre-procedure VAS was 6 to 9 (mean 7.43 ); the one-month post-implant VAS was 2 to 4 (mean 3.07); the 12-month post-implant VAS was 1 to 3 (mean 2.67). In the fourth trial, the pre-procedure VAS was 6 to 9 (mean 7.07); 1 to 4 (mean 2.67) at one-month; 1 to 4 (mean 1.87) at 12 months. Analgesic use was largely reduced. The main adverse events were infection of sites of implantation, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, pain at the sites of electrodes, dislodgement of the electrodes and system failure, however, the incidence in patients with cancer could not be calculated. Since all trials were non-randomised controlled trials, they carried risk of all types of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence is insufficient to establish the role of SCS in treating refractory cancer-related pain. Future randomised studies should focus on the implantation of SCS in patients with cancer-related pain.

The management of pain in metastatic bone disease

BACKGROUND

Metastatic bone disease is a common cause of pain in cancer patients. A multidisciplinary approach to treatment is often necessary because simplified analgesic regimens may fail in the face of complex pain generators, especially those involved in the genesis of neuropathic pain. From the origins of formalized guidelines by the World Health Organization (WHO) to recent developments in implantable therapies, great strides have been made to meet the needs of these patients.

METHODS

The authors review the existing literature on the pathophysiology and treatment options for pain generated by metastatic bone disease and summarize classic and new approaches.

RESULTS

Relatively recent animal models of malignant bone disease have allowed a better understanding of the intimate mechanisms involved in the genesis of pain, resulting in a mechanistic approach to its treatment. Analgesic strategies can be developed with specific targets in mind to complement the classic, opioid-centered WHO analgesic ladder obtaining improved outcomes and quality of life. Unfortunately, high-quality evidence is difficult to produce in pain medicine, and these concepts are evolving slowly.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment options are expanding for the challenging clinical problem of painful metastatic bone disease. Efforts are concentrated on developing alternative nonopioid approaches that appear to increase the success rate and improve patients' quality of life.

Treatment of multifocal pain with spinal cord stimulation

INTRODUCTION

We report a retrospective case study of combined treatment of cancer-related pain and chronic low back and lower extremity pain related to postlaminectomy syndrome (PLS) with one spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system.

METHODS

The patient underwent an uneventful SCS trial with percutaneous placement of two temporary eight-electrode leads (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN) placed at the level of T8-T9-T10 and T5-T6-T7.

RESULTS

After successful trial, he was implanted with permanent leads and generator, reporting sustained pain relief at 12-month follow-up visit.

DISCUSSION

SCS is a trialable, reversible, and interactive therapy permitting patients to control the level of stimulation they feel based on their degree of pain.

CONCLUSION

SCS provides an effective, alternative treatment for select patients with cancer-related chest wall pain and pain related to PLS who have failed conservative treatment.

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Cancer-Related Low Back Pain

Objective: At least one third of patients with cancer have pain at the time of their diagnosis. In an attempt to provide increased pain relief for patients with intractable cancer pain, unconventional agents and interventional procedures including spinal cord stimulation (SCS) have received considerable attention. Methods: Patients with cancer-related low back pain underwent an uneventful SCS trial with percutaneous placement of 2 temporary 8-electrode leads placed at the level of T8-T9-T10. Results: After experiencing excellent pain relief during the 2-day trial, patients were subsequently implanted with permanent leads and generator with sustained pain relief at 12 months postoperation. Conclusion: Spinal cord stimulation provides an effective, alternative treatment option for select patients with cancer-related pain who have failed conservative treatment.

Treatment of Cancer-Related Chest Wall Pain Using Spinal Cord Stimulation

Objective: It has been estimated that 15% to 40% of chronic cancer pain has a neuropathic component, and this type of pain often responds poorly to opioids. In an attempt to provide increased pain relief for patients with intractable cancer pain, unconventional agents and interventional management approaches have received considerable attention. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used with increased frequency for the treatment of intractable cancer pain. Methods: The patients with a history of cancer-related chest wall pain underwent an uneventful SCS trial with percutaneous placement of 2 temporary 8-electrode leads (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minnesota) placed at the level of T3-T4-T5. Results: After experiencing excellent pain relief over the next 2 days, the patients were implanted with permanent leads and rechargeable generator 2 to 2 ½ weeks later and reported sustained pain relief at 12-month follow-up visit. Conclusion: SCS provides an effective, alternative treatment option for select patients with cancer-related chest wall pain who have failed conservative treatment. SCS may provide pain relief with advantages over conservative treatments and more invasive techniques.

Treatment of urinary voiding dysfunction syndromes with spinal cord stimulation

This case report presents the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in a patient with urinary incontinence who had previously undergone trial and implantation of InterStim therapy (Medtronic Neurological, Minneapolis, MN). The patient also experienced bilateral lower extremity pain and low back pain related to post-laminectomy syndrome. Having failed all conservative treatment, the patient underwent SCS trial and subsequent implantation. In the postoperative period using SCS therapy, the patient had excellent relief of urinary incontinence symptoms, along with relief of low back pain and bilateral lower extremity pain and was able to discontinue use of InterStim therapy. For this patient, SCS was effective in controlling the urinary voiding dysfunction symptoms, bilateral lower extremity pain and back pain. The use of SCS to treat urinary incontinence problems deserves further study to explore its therapeutic potentials.