Invasive treatment of pain associated with pancreatic cancer on different levels of WHO analgesic ladder

Early versus delayed computed tomography-guided celiac plexus neurolysis for palliative pain management in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a retrospective cohort study

Introduction

Abdominal and back pain is the most frequent symptom in patients with pancreatic cancer, with pain management being extremely challenging. This study aimed to evaluate pain control, opioid consumption, pain-interfered quality of life, and survival after early and delayed computed tomography (CT)-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of pancreatic cancer patients receiving CPN for pain (n = 56) between June 2018 and June 2021 was done. The patients were grouped as early group (n = 22) and delayed group (n = 34) on the basis of the presence of persistent refractory pain according to expert consensus on refractory cancer pain.

Results

Both groups were comparable in demographic characteristics and baseline pain conditions measured using the numeric rating scale (5.77 ± 1.23 vs. 6.27 ± 1.21; p = 0.141). The pain scores were significantly reduced in both groups; early CPN resulted in significantly lower scores from 3 to 5 months. The opioid consumption gradually decreased to a minimum at 2 weeks but increased at 1 month (35.56 ± 30.14 mg and 50.48 ± 47.90 mg, respectively); significantly larger consumption from 2 to 4 months was seen in the delayed group. The total pain interference was lower than baseline in all patients, with significant improvement after early CPN in sleep, appetite, enjoyment of life, and mood. The average survival time of the two groups was comparable.

Conclusion

Early application of CT-guided CPN for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer may help reduce pain exacerbation and opioids consumption, without influencing the survival.

Efficacy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Celiac Plexus Neurolysis for Abdominal Pain in Patients With Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

GOALS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to investigate the effect of endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis added to medical management (EUS-CPN+MM) compared with MM, percutaneous CPN (P-CPN)+MM, or intraoperative CPN (I-CPN)+MM for abdominal pain associated with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND

Many approaches to CPN have been proposed since 1919. EUS-CPN, which is less invasive and safer than traditional procedures, has been preferred recently, but the superiority of EUS-CPN+MM has not been fully investigated.

STUDY

We performed searches of PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on March 16, 2021. We conducted the network meta-analysis using a frequentist weighted least-squares approach. We used a random-effects model to synthesize the primary outcome, defined as the mean difference between treatment groups in standardized pain intensity scores at 4 and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

We selected 10 RCTs involving 662 individuals. At 4 weeks, the estimated mean difference between the EUS-CPN+MM and MM groups was -1.30 (95% CI: -2.19 to -0.41) in favor of EUS-CPN+MM, and that between the EUS-CPN+MM and P-CPN+MM groups was -0.88 (95% CI: -1.82 to 0.06). At 12 weeks, the estimated mean difference between the EUS-CPN+MM and MM groups was -2.58 (95% CI: -3.68 to -1.48), and that between the EUS-CPN+MM and P-CPN+MM groups was -2.44 (95% CI: -4.03 to -0.84), both in favor of EUS-CPN+MM.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of EUS-CPN+MM was effective at 4 and 12 weeks, although the risk of bias in synthesized studies was generally high, necessitating careful interpretation.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of celiac plexus neurolysis for abdominal pain associated with unresectable pancreatic cancer

INTRODUCTION

Celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) has been developed as adjunctive therapy to medical management (MM) of abdominal pain associated with unresectable pancreatic cancer. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to obtain updated and more accurate evidence on the efficacy of additional types of CPN, including endoscopic ultrasound-guided CPN (EUS-CPN).

METHODS

On March 16, 2021, we performed searches of PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL for original randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We defined the primary outcome as a standardized pain intensity score with a range of 0-10, and evaluated the mean difference between the CPN + MM and MM groups at 4, 8, and 12 weeks after the initiation of treatment. We used a random-effects model to synthesize the mean differences across RCTs.

RESULTS

We selected 10 RCTs involving 646 individuals. The synthesized mean difference in the pain intensity score between the CPN + MM and MM groups was -0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.09 to -0.07) (p = 0.034) in favor of CPN + MM at 4 weeks, -0.46 (95%CI: -1.00 to 0.08) (p = 0.081) at 8 weeks, and - 1.35 (95%CI: -3.61 to 0.92) (p = 0.17) at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated meta-analysis of CPN demonstrates its efficacy for managing abdominal pain at 4 weeks. Although there are various limitations, when abdominal pain in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer is poorly controlled with MM alone, CPN should be an option even if the duration of effect is short-lived, taking into account the absence of serious adverse events.

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.

The Effectiveness of Cancer Pain Management in a Tertiary Hospital Outpatient Pain Clinic in Thailand: A Prospective Observational Study

Objectives

The objective was to examine the effectiveness of the updated approach.

Methods

With IRB approval, outpatients with cancer were enrolled from January to December 2018. Assessments were recorded at baseline and three consecutive visits (BL, FU1, FU2, and FU3), including Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), side effects, and analgesic use. The primary outcome was a favorable response, defined as an NRS decrease more than 30% or NRS <4. Secondary outcomes included trends over time in BPI, ESAS, side effects, and analgesic use. Pain response predictors at FU3 were analyzed using logistic regression.

Results

Among 150 patients, 72 (48%) completed follow-ups. Of these, 61% achieved a favorable response at FU3. Pain interference diminished at all visits relative to baseline (p < 0.05). Median morphine equivalent daily dosage (MEDD) at BL was 20 mg/day, with a statistically significant, but clinically modest increase to 26.4 mg/day at FU3. Radiation therapy during pain care was a predictor of pain responders.

Conclusion

The current Siriraj multidisciplinary approach provided effective relief of pain and stabilization of other cancer-related symptoms. Radiation therapy during pain care can be used to predict pain outcomes. Ongoing improvement domains were identified and considered in the context of cultural, economic, and geographic factors.

Endoscopic pancreatic duct stenting for pain palliation in selected pancreatic cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Abdominal pain is a debilitating symptom affecting ∼80% of pancreatic cancer (PC) patients. Pancreatic duct (PD) decompression has been reported to alleviate this pain, although this practice has not been widely adopted. We aimed to evaluate the role, efficacy, and safety of endoscopic PD decompression for palliation of PC post-prandial obstructive-type pain.

Methods

A systematic review until 7 October 2020 was performed. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality.

Results

We identified 12 publications with a total of 192 patients with PC presenting with abdominal pain, in whom PD decompression was attempted, and was successful in 167 patients (mean age 62.5 years, 58.7% males). The use of plastic stents was reported in 159 patients (95.2%). All included studies reported partial or complete improvement in pain levels after PD stenting, with an improvement rate of 93% (95% confidence interval, 79%–100%). The mean duration of pain improvement was 94 ± 16 days. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related adverse events (AEs) were post-sphincterotomy bleeding (1.8%), post-ERCP pancreatitis (0.6%), and hemosuccus pancreaticus (0.6%). AEs were not reported in two patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided PD decompression. In the 167 patients with technical success, the stent-migration and stent-occlusion rates were 3.6% and 3.0%, respectively. No AE-related mortality was reported. The methodological quality assessment showed the majority of the studies having low or unclear quality.

Conclusion

In this exploratory analysis, endoscopic PD drainage may be an effective and safe option in selected patients for the management of obstructive-type PC pain. However, a randomized–controlled trial is needed to delineate the role of this invasive practice.

Celiac Plexus Neurolysis for the Treatment of Patients with Terminal Cancer at a Tertiary University Hospital in Korea

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) for the treatment of cancerous upper abdominal pain in a tertiary university hospital in Korea.

Methods

At the tertiary university hospital in Korea, electronic medical records of cancer patients who underwent CPN and died in the hospital from November 2009 to June 2018 were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

The total number of subjects was 51. The 17 patients were from the Department of Gastroenterology (33.0%), followed by 11 patients from the Department of Hemato-oncology (21.6%), 11 patients from the Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (21.6%), 9 patients from the Department of General Surgery (17.6%). The diagnosis was pancreatic cancer in 15 patients (29.4%), stomach cancer in 8 patients (15.7%), hepatobiliary cancer in 20 patients (39.2%), colon cancer in 1 patient (2.0%), esophageal cancer in 2 patient (3.9%) and intra-abdominal metastasis in 5 patients (9.8%). The mean survival time after the surgery was 66.4±55.0 days. The pain intensity before and 1 week after the procedure significantly decreased, but the amounts of opioids consumed before and 1 week after the procedure were not statistically significant. Side effects occurred after the procedure including temporary localized pain in 24 patients (47.0%), hypotension in 12 (23.5%), and diarrhea in 6 (11.8%).

Conclusion

CPN is an effective and safe procedure for reducing upper abdominal pain caused by cancer, and it is necessary to perform CPN within the appropriate time by establishing a system of interdepartmental cooperation.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Celiac Plexus Neurolysis to Alleviate Intractable Pain Caused by Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

This study aimed to analyze the clinical safety and effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) in alleviating intractable abdominal pain caused by advanced pancreatic cancer. A total of 58 patients with inoperable pancreatic cancer who underwent EUS-CPN from May 2015 to December 2017 were enrolled. Pain levels before and after EUS-CPN were assessed and compared using the Visual Analogue Scale. The preoperative Visual Analogue Scale score was 8.2±2.3, which decreased significantly to 3.6±1.5 at 2 days after EUS-CPN and to 2.2±0.8 after 1 month. The response rate was 79.3%. No patient experienced serious complications; 14 patients experienced mild, transient side effects (self-limiting diarrhea, reflex hypotension, and worsening of abdominal pain) that resolved within 48 hours. For pancreatic cancer patients, EUS-CPN can effectively control pain with minimal adverse effects.

Celiac plexus block increases quality of life in patients with pancreatic cancer

Background

Pancreatic cancer is a malignant disease with a high mortality rate and severe pain that is challenging to manage. To reduce the excruciating abdominal pain, opioids and adjuvant agents are conventionally used.

Objectives

PRNCPB is a treatment of neural therapy. The number of studies assessing the effect on patients' QoL is limited and inconsistent. With this study, we intended to address this issue.

Study design

A prospective nonrandomized study with a series of cases of unresectable pancreatic cancer was conducted.

Setting

The study was performed at our pain clinic under real life conditions.

Materials and methods

A total number of 16 patients with severe abdominal pain were enrolled in the study all of whom had responded to combined systemic analgesic therapy inadequately and had intolerable side effects contraindicating further increase in dose. The efficacy of this invasive, palliative analgesic procedure was evaluated 35 days after PRNCPB was performed. Primary outcomes were changed in pain intensity using the VAS questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were improved in QoL using the SF-36 questionnaire. Changes in pain medications and adverse reactions were monitored.

Results

After PRNCPB patients experienced a significant decrease (P=0.002) in pain intensity as shown by the VAS score, and a decreased opiate demand. Their QoL scores considering effect sizes also improved (P<0.001). No complications attributable to PRNCPB were observed during the study period. Additionally, no adverse drug reactions were observed.

Limitations

Detection, observation, and reporting bias can be estimated as moderate. Selection bias was not detected.

Conclusion

Our results give preliminary evidence that PRNCPB might be helpful as an additional treatment to conventional pain management in end-stage pancreatic cancer patients. PRNCPB seems to improve QoL in these patients in a time frame of at least 5 weeks after intervention.

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.

Evaluation of intrathecal drug delivery system for intractable pain in advanced malignancies: A prospective cohort study

Pain is prevalent in advanced malignancies; however, some patients cannot get adequate pain relief by conservative routes of analgesic administration or experience serious side effects related to high dose of opioids. For those who have exhausted multimodal conservative analgesic, intrathecal drug delivery is an alternative intervention for truly effective pain management. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of intrathecal drug delivery system (IDDS) for the treatment of intractable pain in advanced cancer patients.A prospective cohort study was performed between July 2015 and October 2016. Fifty-three patients undergoing intractable cancer-related pain or intolerable drug-related adverse effects were recruited and received IDDS therapy with a patient-controlled intrathecal analgesia pump. The assessment was conducted during admission, in titration period, and followed up monthly to death by scheduled refill visits. Pain numeric rating scale scores, comprehensive toxicity scores, quality of life scores, systemic opioid use (basal and breakthrough dose), intrathecal morphine use (basal and patient-controlled intrathecal analgesia dose), and complications were recorded to evaluate the curative effect and safety.Between baseline and all subsequent follow-ups, statistically significant decreases in pain numeric rating scale scores and comprehensive toxicity scores were verified. A statistical improvement in quality of life scores was found after starting IDDS therapy. Both basal and breakthrough doses of systemic opioid showed a significant decrease during the follow-up period. And there was a modest escalation in the intrathecal morphine dose throughout the duration of study. No infective, device-related, and catheter-related complications were observed.The findings showed that IDDS therapy allowed for rapid and highly effective pain relief with less toxicity in comparison to conservative medications. Patients with advanced malignancies would also benefit from an improvement in the life quality after the procedure. IDDS therapy represented a valuable option for intractable cancer-related pain management.