Neurolytic Splanchnic Nerve Block and Pain Relief, Survival, and Quality of Life in Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Neurolytic splanchnic nerve block is used to manage pancreatic cancer pain. However, its impact on survival and quality of life remains controversial. The authors' primary hypothesis was that pain relief would be better with a nerve block. Secondarily, they hypothesized that analgesic use, survival, and quality of life might be affected. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, parallel-armed trial was conducted in five Chinese centers. Eligible patients suffering from moderate to severe pain conditions were randomly assigned to receive splanchnic nerve block with either absolute alcohol (neurolysis) or normal saline (control). The primary outcome was pain relief measured on a visual analogue scale. Opioid consumption, survival, quality of life, and adverse effects were also documented. Analgesics were managed using a protocol common to all centers. Patients were followed up for 8 months or until death. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients (48 for each group) were included in the analysis. Pain relief with neurolysis was greater for the first 3 months (largest at the first month; mean difference, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.0]; adjusted P < 0.001) compared with placebo injection. Opioid consumption with neurolysis was lower for the first 5 months (largest at the first month; mean difference, 95.8 [95% CI, 67.4 to 124.1]; adjusted P < 0.001) compared with placebo injection. There was a significant difference in survival (hazard ratio, 1.56 [95% CI, 1.03 to 2.35]; P = 0.036) between groups. A significant reduction in survival in neurolysis was found for stage IV patients (hazard ratio, 1.94 [95% CI, 1.29 to 2.93]; P = 0.001), but not for stage III patients (hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.97]; P = 0.809). No differences in quality of life were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Neurolytic splanchnic nerve block appears to be an effective option for controlling pain and reducing opioid requirements in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

Cancer pain management in the emergency department: a multicenter prospective observational trial of the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergencies Research Network (CONCERN).

PURPOSE: Many patients with cancer seek care for pain in the emergency department (ED). Prospective research on cancer pain in this setting has historically been insufficient. We conducted this study to describe the reported pain among cancer patients presenting to the ED, how pain is managed, and how pain may be associated with clinical outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter cohort study on adult patients with active cancer presenting to 18 EDs in the USA. We reported pain scores, response to medication, and analgesic utilization. We estimated the associations between pain severity, medication utilization, and the following outcomes: 30-day mortality, 30-day hospital readmission, and ED disposition. RESULTS: The study population included 1075 participants. Those who received an opioid in the ED were more likely to be admitted to the hospital and were more likely to be readmitted within 30 days (OR 1.4 (95% CI: 1.11, 1.88) and OR 1.56 (95% CI: 1.17, 2.07)), respectively. Severe pain at ED presentation was associated with increased 30-day mortality (OR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.05, 5.02), though this risk was attenuated when adjusting for clinical factors (most notably functional status). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe pain had a higher risk of mortality, which was attenuated when correcting for clinical characteristics. Those patients who required opioid analgesics in the ED were more likely to require admission and were more at risk of 30-day hospital readmission. Future efforts should focus on these at-risk groups, who may benefit from additional services including palliative care, hospice, or home-health services.

Long-Term Results of Dose-Intensified Fractionated Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for Painful Spinal Metastases.

PURPOSE: To report long-term outcome of fractionated stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for painful spinal metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This prospective, single-arm, multicenter phase 2 clinical trial enrolled 57 patients with 63 painful, unirradiated spinal metastases between March 2012 and July 2015. Patients were treated with 48.5 Gy in 10 SBRT fractions (long life expectancy [Mizumoto score ≤4]) or 35 Gy in 5 SBRT fractions (intermediate life expectancy [Mizumoto score 5-9]). Pain response was defined as pain improvement of a minimum of 2 points on a visual analog scale, and net pain relief was defined as the sum of time with pain response (complete and partial) divided by the overall follow-up time. RESULTS: All 57 patients received treatment per protocol; 32 and 25 patients were treated with 10- and 5-fraction SBRT, respectively. The median follow-up of living patients was 60 months (range, 33-74 months). Of evaluable patients, 82% had complete or partial pain response (responders) at 3 months' follow-up (primary endpoint), and pain response remained stable over 5 years. Net pain relief was 74% (95% CI, 65%-80%). Overall survival rates of 1, 3, and 5 years were 59.6% (95% CI, 47%-72%), 33.3% (95% CI, 21%-46%), and 21% (95% CI, 10%-32%), respectively. Freedom from local spinal-metastasis progression was 82% at the last imaging follow-up. Late grade-3 toxicity was limited to pain in 2 patients (nonresponders). There were no cases of myelopathy. SBRT resulted in long-term improvements of all dimensions of the 5-level EuroQol 5-Dimension Questionnaire except anxiety/depression. CONCLUSIONS: Fractionated SBRT achieved durable pain response and improved quality of life at minimum late toxicity.

Pain Response After Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Versus Conventional Radiation Therapy in Patients With Bone Metastases-A Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Trial Within a Prospective Cohort.

PURPOSE: Pain response after conventional external beam radiation therapy (cRT) in patients with painful bone metastases is observed in 60% to 70% of patients. The aim of the VERTICAL trial was to investigate whether stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) improves pain response. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This single-center, phase 2, randomized controlled trial was conducted within the PRESENT cohort, which consists of patients referred for radiation therapy of bone metastases to our tertiary center. Cohort participants with painful bone metastases who gave broad informed consent for randomization were randomly assigned to cRT or SBRT. Only patients in the intervention arm received information about the trial and were offered SBRT (1 × 18 Gy, 3 × 10 Gy, or 5 × 7 Gy), which they could accept or refuse. Patients who refused SBRT underwent standard cRT (1 × 8 Gy, 5 × 4 Gy, or 10 × 3 Gy). Patients in the control arm were not informed. Primary endpoint was pain response at 3 months after radiation therapy. Secondary outcomes were pain response at any point within 3 months, mean pain scores, and toxicity. Data were analyzed intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP). This trial was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02364115. RESULTS: Between January 29, 2015, and March 20, 2019, 110 patients were randomized. ITT analysis included 44 patients in the cRT arm and 45 patients in the SBRT arm. In the intervention arm, 12 patients (27%) declined SBRT, and 7 patients (16%) were unable to complete the SBRT treatment. In ITT, 14 of 44 patients (32%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 18%-45%) in the control arm and 18 of 45 patients (40%; 95% CI, 26%-54%) in the SBRT arm reported a pain response at 3 months (P = .42). In PP, these proportions were 14 of 44 (32%; 95% CI, 18%-45%) and 12 of 23 patients (46%; 95% CI, 27%-66%), respectively (P = .55). In ITT, a pain response within 3 months was reported by 30 of 44 control patients (82%; 95% CI, 68%-90%) and 38 of 45 patients (84%; 95% CI, 71%-92%) in the SBRT arm (P = .12). In PP, these proportions were 36 of 44 (82%; 95% CI, 68%-90%) and 26 of 27 patients (96%; 95% CI; 81%-100%), respectively (P = .12). No grade 3 or 4 toxicity was observed in either arm. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT did not significantly improve pain response in patients with painful bone metastases. One in 4 patients preferred to undergo cRT over SBRT, and 1 in 5 patients starting SBRT was unable to complete this treatment. Because of this selective dropout, which can be attributed to the character of the intervention, the trial was underpowered to detect the prespecified difference in pain response.

The prognostic value of pain in castration-sensitive prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related pain, usually associated with bone metastases, is a frequent and debilitating morbidity in patients with prostate cancer. To date there are only limited data regarding the prognostic role of pain in men with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). The objective of our analysis was to assess if the presence of pain can be considered an independent prognostic factor in mCSPC patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients with mCSPC referring to six oncology centers in Italy. Clinical and pathological features were recorded. Patients were considered to have pain if this was reported within the patient's file or in case of a chronic analgesic therapy was found among the concomitant medications. Survivals were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared across groups using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazard models, stratified according to the baseline characteristics, were used to estimate hazard ratios for overall survival (OS). All the variables were significant if p < 0.05. RESULTS: Data about pain were available for 365 cases and pain was present in 34.8% of patients. Pain was mainly associated with high value of prostate-specific antigen, metastatic bone extension regardless of the site, and lymph node involvement. mCSPC patients with pain had in most of the cases high-volume or Hr disease, and significant shorter OS (27.0 vs. 58.2 months, p < 0.001) and PFS (10.1 vs. 17.4 months, p < 0.001) compared to those without pain. The negative impact of pain on OS remained significant even if adjusted for CHAARTED or LATITUDE classification, and other significant baseline prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis supports the poor prognostic role of cancer-related pain in the setting of mCSPC patients. A prospective validation is required.

The prognostic and predictive role of pain before systemic chemotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer: an individual participant data meta-analysis of the North-Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology (NOGGO) of 1226 patients.

BACKGROUND: Aim of this study was to analyze the impact of pain on quality of life and survival in recurrent OC patients. METHODS: Raw data including the QLQ-C30 questionnaire from three phase II/III trials ("Topotecan phase III," "Hector," and "TRIAS") conducted by the North-Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology (NOGGO) were synthesized and analyzed using logistic and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Data on pain was available for 952 patients out of 1226. Moderate to severe pain, which was defined as pain ≥ 50 in the QLQ-C30 symptom scale, was experienced by more than one-third of patients (36.6%). A total of 31% were taking non-opioid pain medication and 16% opioids. Median age at randomization was 61 years (range 25-84). Most patients (84.7%) were diagnosed in FIGO III/IV. Pain was independent from age, FIGO stage, grading, amount of recurrences, and chemotherapy-free interval. ECOG was significantly worse in patients with pain (p < 0.001). Fatigue, nausea/vomiting, sleeping disorders, and abdominal symptoms such as loss of appetite, diarrhea, and constipation were more frequently found in patients with pain (all p < 0.001). Quality of life was significantly diminished (p < 0.001). Pain was also an independent marker for overall survival (OS). Median OS was 18.2 months in patients with pain compared with 22.0 months in patients without pain (p = 0.013, HR 1.25, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.48). OS was shorter in patients with pain and without pain medication compared with those on sufficient pain medication, whereas OS was mostly decreased in patients having pain despite pain medication (18.5, 19.6, and 15.0 months respectively; p = 0.026). Progression-free survival and prior treatment discontinuation were not associated with pain. CONCLUSION: Best supportive care including sufficient pain medication should be delivered as early as possible because effective pain management is crucial for both quality of life and overall survival in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

High-intensity focused ultrasound ablation for advanced pancreatic cancer.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and survival factors of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted between September 2010 and March 2016. Advanced pancreatic cancer patients with HIFU treatment were enrolled in the analysis to evaluate the efficacy of local ablation, pain relief, and relative complications of HIFU therapy. The main factors that affected Overall survival rate (OSR) and median survival time (MST) were also analyzed. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients received HIFU treatment, with a total of 93 treatments performed, and 83 cases were evaluated. Complete response rate (RR) was 3.6% (3/83) and partial RR was 79.5% (66/83). After HIFU treatment, pain reduction was observed in 74 patients, and the total remission rate was 97.6% (74/76). The total MST was 9.9 months (2-58.7 months), the total OSR in 1 and 2 years was 41.5% and 9.6%, respectively. Minor complications occurred in 97.7% (42/43) patients, including transient fever, abdominal pain, skin burn, and amylase elevation. The univariate analysis showed that the clinical stage, treatment method, ablation efficacy, and combined treatment were significant prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: HIFU can significantly alleviate cancer-related pain and prolong the survival time of patients with pancreatic cancer.

Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) and Other Local Ablative Therapies. / Fortgeschrittenes Pankreaskarzinom: Hoch-intensiver fokussierter Ultraschall (HIFU) und andere lokal ablative Verfahren.

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced pancreatic cancer is a life-limiting tumor with a wide range of incapacitating symptoms such as cancer-associated pain. Several local ablative therapies with both thermal and non-thermal sources have recently received significant attention as modern treatment options for local tumor control and symptomatic improvement. The following review article provides an overview of currently available techniques and their outcomes including our own experience with high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) being one of the most exciting and innovative modalities. METHOD: Our experiences with HIFU treatment are based on 89 pancreatic cancer patients (UICC III-IV). Outcomes such as treatment-related changes in symptoms particularly in cancer pain and quality of life as well as local tumor response, safety and survival were compared to reported studies concerning HIFU, radiofrequency and microwave ablation, cryoablation, irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiation therapy. RESULTS: Even though all strategies appeared to be feasible, the unique feature of noninvasiveness represents a substantial advantage of the HIFU procedure. In 85 % of HIFU-treated patients, long-lasting pain relief was achieved. 50 % of patients did not require any analgesic treatment 6 weeks post-ablation. Unfortunately, pain palliation and quality-of-life outcomes are only rarely reported for other local treatment modalities. Tumor mass reduction could be achieved with all ablative therapies, with a mean tumor volume reduction of 60 % after 6 months in HIFU-treated pancreatic tumors. Differences in treatment-associated morbidity were reported. However, they are only partially comparable due to unbalanced study populations. CONCLUSION: Various local ablative treatment modalities are available and feasible for tumor mass reduction of advanced pancreatic cancer but with different symptomatic benefit for patients. An effective and long-lasting reduction of cancer-related pain was observed following HIFU without insertion of needles or electrodes. Randomized controlled studies for head-to-head comparison of these modalities are warranted in the near future. KEY POINTS: · Several ablative therapies are available for the local treatment of inoperable pancreatic cancer.. · Tumor mass and symptom reduction are main goals of local therapies.. · HIFU differs based on its noninvasive approach and low complication rate.. · HIFU enables effective long-lasting pain relief in > 80 % of patients.. · HIFU-associated pain relief is independent of tumor stage and metastatic status.. CITATION FORMAT: · Marinova M, Wilhelm-Buchstab T, Strunk H. Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) and Other Local Ablative Therapies. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2019; 191: 216 - 227.

Gender differences in pain and patient reported outcomes: a secondary analysis of the NCIC CTG SC. 23 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Gender differences may contribute to variations in disease presentations and health outcomes. To explore the gender difference in pain and patient reported outcomes in cancer patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy on the National Cancer Institute of Canada (NCIC) SC.23 randomized trial. METHODS: Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life (QOL) bone metastases module (QLQ-BM22) and EORTC QOL Core-15-Palliative (QLQ-C15-PAL) before treatment and at days 10 and 42 after a single 8 Gy radiation treatment. Patient demographics, performance status, analgesic consumption, BM22 and C15 were compared between males and females using the 2-sample t-test for continuous variables or the Chi-squared test for categorical variables. Multiple linear regression models were used to check the difference between gender groups adjusting for the baseline demographics and primary disease sites. RESULTS: There were 298 patients (170 male, 128 female) with median age of 69 years. The most common primary cancer sites were lung, prostate and breast. At baseline, there were no differences in BM22 and C15 scores, except a worse nausea and vomiting score (P=0.03) in females on the C15. In patients with moderate baseline worst pain scores (WPS), females reported worse scores in painful sites of BM22. At day 42, there was no significant difference in response to radiotherapy. Among the responders, females reported better improvement in emotional aspect. CONCLUSIONS: In cancer patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiotherapy, the majority of symptom presentations, patient reported outcomes, and response to radiation was not significantly different between genders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01248585.

Palliative radiotherapy utilization within a regional Australian palliative care unit.

BACKGROUND: Palliative radiotherapy has been demonstrated to be efficacious for symptom management in advanced malignancy however there are limited data investigating its use for inpatient palliative care patients. The aim of the current paper was to evaluate the utilization of radiotherapy amongst patients admitted to a regional Australian palliative care unit (PCU). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was undertaken involving all Barwon Health PCU patients who received radiotherapy whilst an inpatient. A range of clinico-demographic, radiotherapy-specific and outcome measures were evaluated. Changes in opioid consumption were used as a surrogate for radiotherapy effectiveness. Demographic variables were analyzed descriptively and Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests were used to compare opioid consumption before and after radiotherapy at time points one week, two weeks and three weeks. RESULTS: Sixty episodes of radiotherapy were provided to 51 PCU patients during the study period with 54 admissions included in the final analysis. Pain management was the commonest reason for radiotherapy treatment and most courses were multi-fractionated. Using the proportion of patients whose opioid dose decreased following radiotherapy as a marker for response, response rates ranged from 32-42%. Fortyeight percent of patients died during their PCU admission and the median survival from radiotherapy commencement was 36 days. CONCLUSIONS: A small proportion of all patients admitted to PCU received radiotherapy. Almost half of patients died during their admission and radiotherapy response rates were lower than have been reported for all-comers. More research is needed to optimize the stratification of PCU patients for radiotherapy.