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.

Socioeconomic Disparities in the Utilization of Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy in Patients with Chronic Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies are used in the management of patients with complex regional pain syndrome I (CRPS I) and failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). The purpose of this study was to investigate the racial and health insurance inequalities with SCS therapy in patients with chronic pain who had CRPS I and FBSS. METHODS: Patients with chronic pain who had a discharge diagnosis of FBSS and CRPS I were identified using the National Inpatient Sample database. Our primary outcome was defined as the history of SCS utilization by race/ethnicity, income quartile, and insurance status. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the variables associated with utilization of SCS therapy. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2015, 40,858 patients who were hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of FBSS and/or CRPS I were identified. Of these patients, 1,082 (2.7%) had a history of SCS therapy. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that compared to White patients, Black and Hispanic patients had higher odds of having SCS therapy (Black patients: odds ratio [OR] = 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12 to 1.77; P = 0.003; Hispanic patients: OR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.81; P = 0.007). Patients with private insurance had significantly higher odds of having SCS therapy compared with those with Medicare (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.43; P = 0.003). Compared to patients with Medicare, Medicaid patients had lower odds of having SCS therapy (OR = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.70; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that socioeconomic disparities may exist in the utilization of SCS among hospitalized patients with CRPS I and FBSS the United States. However, confirming these data from other administrative databases, in the outpatient setting, may shed more insight.

Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion for the Management of Early Postoperative Pain: A Comprehensive Review of Controlled Trials.

Previously used as anti-arrhythmic, intravenous lidocaine infusion is becoming popular for use in management of acute pain. There is still much to be understood about its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, especially with regard to optimal dosing to avoid side effects. In this article, we selected and reviewed randomized controlled trials to summarize the pharmacokinetics, antinociceptive effects, anti-hyperalgesic effects, anti-inflammatory effects, side effects, and role of intravenous lidocaine in the management of early postoperative pain. The mechanisms of action of lidocaine are still unclear but there are many theories postulated. Optimal dosing of lidocaine is not known but general consensus indicates that a loading dose of 1-2 mg/kg, followed by 1-2 mg/kg/hr continuous infusion during early postoperative pain control while recovering from anesthesia to achieve therapeutic levels of 0.5-5 mcg/kg clearly improves analgesia in the immediate postoperative period. Although lidocaine was initially studied and proven to have clear analgesic effects following laparoscopic and open abdominal surgeries, it has now been shown to be applicable in different clinical settings perioperatively including following spinal, breast, ENT and other surgeries. It is generally safe, with hypotension, headache and vomiting being the more common side effects. Serious adverse effects include cardiovascular block and arrhythmias, neuro-excitability and hypersensitivity, although the frequency of these are not known.

Removing barriers to participation in clinical trials, a conceptual framework and retrospective chart review study.

BACKGROUND: Enrollment in interventional therapeutic clinical trials is a small fraction of all patients who might participate given reasonable access. METHODS: A hierarchical approach is utilized in measuring staged participation from trial availability to patient enrollment. Our framework suggests that concern for justice comes in the design and eligibility criteria for clinical trials; attention to beneficence is given in the eligibility and physician triage stages. The remaining four stages rely on respect for persons. An example is given where reasons for nonparticipation or barriers to participation in prostate cancer clinical trials are examined within the framework. In addition, medical oncology patients with an initial six month consultation are tracked from one stage to the next by race using the framework to assess participation comparability. RESULTS: We illustrated seven transitions from being a patient to enrollment in a clinical trial in a small study of prostate cancer cases who consulted SKCCC Medical Oncology Department in early 2010. Pilot data suggest transition probabilities as follows: 65% availability, 84% eligibility, 92% patient triage, 89% trials discussed, 45% patient interested, 63% patient consented, and 92% patient enrolled. The average transition probability was 77.7%. The average transition probability, patient-trial-fit was 50%; opportunity was 51%, and acceptance was 66.7%. Trial availability, patient interest and patient consented were three transitions that were below the average; none were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The framework may serve to streamline comprehensive reporting of clinical trial participation to the benefit of patients and the ethical conduct of clinical trials.