Analgesic Effects of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Sham-Controlled, Pilot Study

Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on fear of cancer recurrence and its underlying neuromechanism

Introduction

Many breast cancer patients suffer from fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). However, effective physical intervention for FCR has been scarce. Previous studies have confirmed that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can help improve patients' anxiety, depression, fear, and stress level. Therefore, this study aims to assess the efficacy of rTMS in the treatment of FCR in breast cancer patients and explore its underlying neural mechanism.

Methods and analysis

and analysis: Fifty breast cancer patients with high FCR (FCR total score >27), and fifty age- and gender-matched patients with low FCR (FCR total score <7) will be recruited to participate in this study. Patients in the high FCR group will be randomly assigned to receive 4-week low-frequency rTMS targeting the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (rDLPFC) + treatment as usual (TAU) (n = 25), or to receive sham stimulation + TAU (n = 25). Patients in the low FCR group will only receive TAU. All participants will take a baseline fMRI scan to examine the local activities and interactions of brain activity between the prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), amygdala and hippocampus. Fear of Cancer Recurrence Questionnaire (FCRQ7), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9), Generalize Anxiety Disorder (GAD7), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI7) will be used to measure an individual's FCR, depression, anxiety, pain, and insomnia symptoms at week 0 (baseline), week 4 (the end of intervention), week 5 (1 week post-treatment), week 8 (1 month post-treatment), and week 16 (3 months post-treatment). Participants in the high FCR group will receive a post-treatment fMRI scan within 24 h after intervention to explore the neural mechanisms of rTMS treatment. The primary outcome of the study, whether the rTMS intervention is sufficient in relieving FCR in breast cancer patients, is measured by FCRQ7. Additionally, task activation, local activity and functional connectivity of the DLPFC, amygdala and hippocampus will be compared, between high and low FCR group, and before and after treatment.

Discussion

Studies have shown that low-frequency rTMS can be used to treat patient's FCR. However, there is a lack of relevant evidence to support the efficacy of rTMS on FCR in cancer patients, and the neural mechanisms underlying the effects of rTMS on FCR need to be further investigated.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval for the study has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (reference number: KY-N-2022-136-01). The results of the investigation will be published in scientific papers. The data from the investigation will be made available online if necessary.

Trial registration

NCT05881889 (ClinicalTrials.gov). Date of registration: May 31, 2023.

The Application of tDCS to Treat Pain and Psychocognitive Symptoms in Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review

Background

The use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to modulate pain, psychological aspects, and cognitive functions has increased in recent years. The present scoping review aims to investigate the use of tDCS in cancer patients and its significant impact on psychocognitive and pain related symptoms.

Methods

From the earliest available date to June 2023, a comprehensive search was conducted in three electronic scientific databases-PubMed, Scopus, and Embase-and other supplementary sources. Ten relevant studies were identified and included, comprising single case studies, randomized controlled trials, pilot studies, and one retrospective study. PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews were followed.

Results

These studies investigated the use of tDCS to improve pain and psychocognitive aspects in patients with various types of cancer, including breast, oral, bladder, lung, pancreatic, head and neck cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, and meningioma. Overall, the results suggest that tDCS has shown efficacy in relieving pain, reducing anxiety and depression, and improving cognitive function in cancer patients.

Conclusion

Due to the limited number and high heterogeneity of the existing literature in this field, more investigation and the establishment of standardized protocols would be required to obtain more conclusive evidence.

Cancer Pain and Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation-A Narrative Review

Background and Objectives: Pain is the most prevalent symptom in cancer patients. There is a paucity of data regarding non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) for the treatment of chronic pain in patients with cancer. The purpose of this article is to review the techniques of NIBS and present the published experiences of the oncological population. Materials and Methods: Databases including MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles on cancer patients with pain that was managed with non-invasive brain stimulation techniques. We included articles in English that were published from inception to January 2023. As studies were limited in number and had different designs and methodologies, a narrative review was considered as the best option to integrate data. Results: Four studies focusing on transcranial magnetic stimulation, six articles on transcranial direct current stimulation, and three articles regarding cranial electric stimulation were found and reviewed. Conclusions: Data are limited and not robust. Further studies in this field are required. Guidelines on NIBS for non-malignant chronic pain conditions provide good premises for cancer-related chronic pain.

Noninvasive Brain Stimulation for Cancer Pain Management in Nonbrain Malignancy: A Meta-Analysis

Purpose. Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) has been reported to have analgesic effects on fibromyalgia and chronic neuropathic pain; however, its effects on cancer pain have yet to be determined. The present study aimed to evaluate the effects of NIBS on patients with pain secondary to nonbrain malignancy. Methods. Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception through June 5th, 2022. Parallel, randomized, placebo-controlled studies were included that enrolled adult patients with cancer pain, except for that caused by brain tumors, compared NIBS with placebo stimulation, and reported sufficient data for performing meta-analysis. Results. Four parallel, randomized, sham-controlled studies were included: two of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), one of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and one of cranial electrical stimulation (CES). rTMS significantly improved pain in the subgroup analysis (standardized mean difference (SMD): −1.148, 95% confidence interval (CI): −1.660 to −0.637, ( $p<0.001$ )), while NIBS was not benefited in reducing pain intensity (SMD: −0.632, 95% CI: −1.356 to 0.092, p = 0.087). Also, NIBS significantly improved depressive symptoms (SMD: −0.665, 95% CI: −1.178 to −0.153, p = 0.011), especially in the form of rTMS (SMD: −0.875, 95% CI: −1.356 to −0.395, $p<0.001$ ) and tDCS (SMD: −1.082, 95% CI: −1.746 to −0.418, p = 0.001). Conclusion. rTMS significantly improved pain secondary to nonbrain malignancy apart from other forms of NIBS without major adverse events.

Intermittent theta-burst stimulation with physical exercise improves poststroke motor function: A systemic review and meta-analysis

Background

Intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) is an optimized rTMS modality that could modulate the excitability of neural structures. Several studies have been conducted to investigate the efficacy of iTBS in improving the motor function of stroke patients. However, the specific role of iTBS in motor function recovery after stroke is unclear. Hence, in our study, we performed a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of iTBS for the motor function improvement of stroke patients.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched until May 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Results

Thirteen RCTs with 334 patients were finally included in our study. The primary endpoints were the Fugl-Meyer assessment scale (FMA) and Motor Assessment Scale (MAS) change from baseline. We found that iTBS led to a significant reduction in FMA score (P = 0.002) but not in MAS score (P = 0.24) compared with the sham group. Moreover, standard 600-pulse stimulation showed a better effect on motor function improvement than the sham group (P = 0.004), however, 1200-pulse iTBS showed no effect on motor function improvement after stroke (P = 0.23). The effect of iTBS for improving motor function only exists in chronic stroke patients (P = 0.02) but not in subacute patients (P = 0.27).

Conclusion

This study supports that iTBS has good efficacy for improving motor function in stroke patients. Therefore, standard 600-pulse stimulation iTBS therapy is proper management and treatment for chronic stroke.