Spinal cord stimulation for cancer-related low back pain. Treatment of cancer-related chest wall pain using spinal cord stimulation. Spinal cord stimulation in management of chronic pain. A 9-year experience. A family-based randomized controlled trial of pain intervention for adolescents with sickle cell disease. Samarium-153-Lexidronam complex for treatment of painful bone metastases in hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Combined analysis of two multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled studies of pamidronate disodium for the palliation of bone pain in men with metastatic prostate cancer. Feasibility study of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) for cancer bone pain. Effectiveness of a clinical intervention in improving pain control in outpatients with cancer treated by radiation therapy. [Remineralization and pain relief in bone metastases after after different radiotherapy fractions (10 times 3 Gy vs. 1 time 8 Gy). A prospective study].
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.
                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.
                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.
                Spinal cord stimulation provides an effective, alternative treatment option for select patients with cancer-related pain who have failed conservative treatment. 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.
                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.
                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. Between 1978 and 1986, 109 patients with chronic pain underwent spinal cord stimulation (SCS) at the authors' institute as part of their pain treatment program. The results of SCS in these patients at the end of the test period and at the latest follow-up examination are analyzed in relation to the etiology of their pain. In 40 patients pain was associated with an obstructive peripheral vasculopathy, in 10 with a previous herpes zoster infection, in 15 with an incomplete traumatic spinal cord lesion, in nine with root and/or nerve damage, in 11 with cancer, and in 19 with previous back surgery. The etiology of the pain in five patients was uncertain. This experience supports the conclusion that the best indications for SCS are vasculopathic pain and post-herpetic neuralgia. No clinical usefulness was found for SCS in cancer pain or in central deafferentation types of pain. The study had 2 aims---to determine the efficacy of a family-based cognitive-behavioral pain management intervention for adolescents with sickle cell disease (SCD) in (1) reducing pain and improving health-related variables and (2) improving psychosocial outcomes. Each adolescent and a family support person were randomly assigned to receive a brief pain intervention (PAIN) (n=27) or a disease education attention control intervention (DISEASE ED) (n=26) delivered at home. Assessment of primary pain and health-related variables (health service use, pain coping, pain-related hindrance of goals) and secondary psychosocial outcomes (disease knowledge, disease self-efficacy, and family communication) occurred at baseline (before randomization), postintervention, and 1-year follow-up. Change on outcomes did not differ significantly by group at either time point. When groups were combined in exploratory analyses, there was evidence of small to medium effects of intervention on health-related and psychosocial variables. Efforts to address barriers to participation and improve feasibility of psychosocial interventions for pediatric SCD are critical to advancing development of effective treatments for pain. Sample size was insufficient to adequately test efficacy, and analyses did not support this focused cognitive-behavioral pain management intervention in this sample of adolescents with SCD. Exploratory analyses suggest that comprehensive interventions, that address a broad range of skills related to disease management and adolescent health concerns, may be more effective in supporting teens during healthcare transition. A Phase III randomized trial was designed to assess the effectiveness of samarium-153 (153Sm)-lexidronam for palliation of bone pain in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.
                A total of 152 men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer and painful bone metastases were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial comparing radioactive (153Sm) versus nonradioactive (152Sm) lexidronam complexes. Patients were randomized (2:1) to the radioactive (153Sm) agent. Patient diaries recording daily pain and analgesic use were completed during a planned 16-week evaluation period. Nonresponders were informed of the treatment received after 4 weeks of treatment and, if initially treated with placebo, were allowed to receive 153Sm-lexidronam in an open-label fashion. Pain was measured using validated patient-derived visual analog scales and pain descriptor scales.
                153Sm-lexidronam had positive effects on measures of pain relief compared with placebo within 1 to 2 weeks. Reductions in opioid use were recorded at weeks 3 and 4. Because nonresponders were unblinded at week 4, statistical comparisons between the arms beyond week 4 were not possible. Mild, transient bone marrow suppression was the only adverse event associated with 153Sm-lexidronam administration. The mean nadir white blood cell and platelet count (3 to 4 weeks after treatment) was 3800/microL and 127,000/microL, respectively. Counts recovered to baseline after approximately 8 weeks. No grade 4 decreases in either platelets or white bloods cells were documented.
                These findings demonstrate that 1 mCi/kg 153Sm-lexidronam is both safe and effective for the palliation of painful bone metastases in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Bone metastases occur in approximately 80% of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Pain is common in these patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of an intravenous bisphosphonate, pamidronate disodium, on pain control in metastatic prostate cancer patients.
                Two multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials were conducted in patients with bone pain due to metastatic prostate cancer, with disease progression after first-line hormonal therapy. Intravenous pamidronate disodium (90 mg) or placebo was administered every 3 weeks for 27 weeks. Efficacy was measured via self-reported pain score (Brief Pain Inventory), analgesic use, the proportion of patients with a skeletal-related event (SRE; defined as pathologic fracture, radiation or surgery to bone, spinal cord compression, or hypercalcemia), and a pilot quantitative measurement of mobility. Laboratory evaluations included serum prostate-specific antigen, interleukin-6, bone alkaline phosphatase, and urinary bone resorption markers.
                Results of the two trials were pooled. There were no sustained significant differences between the pamidronate and placebo groups in self-reported pain measurements, analgesic use, proportion of patients with an SRE, or mobility at week 9 or 27. Urinary bone resorption markers were suppressed in the pamidronate group compared with placebo.
                Pamidronate disodium failed to demonstrate a significant overall treatment benefit compared with placebo in palliation of bone pain or reduction of SREs. Evaluation of more potent bisphosphonates in patients with prostate cancer is warranted. This multicenter study assessed the feasibility of conducting a phase III trial of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in patients with cancer bone pain recruited from palliative care services. Eligible patients received active and placebo TENS for 1 hour at site of pain in a randomized crossover design; median interval between applications 3 days. Responses assessed at 30 and 60 minutes included numerical and verbal ratings of pain at rest and on movement, and pain relief. Recruitment, tolerability, adverse events, and effectiveness of blinding were also evaluated. Twenty-four patients were randomised and 19 completed both applications. The intervention was well tolerated. Five patients withdrew: 3 due to deteriorating performance status, and 2 due to increased pain (1 each following active and placebo TENS). Confidence interval estimation around the differences in outcomes between active and placebo TENS suggests that TENS has the potential to decrease pain on movement more than pain on rest. Nine patients did not consider that a placebo was used; the remaining 10 correctly identified placebo TENS. Feasibility studies are important in palliative care prior to undertaking clinical trials. Our findings suggest that further work is required on recruitment strategies and refining the control arm before evaluating TENS in cancer bone pain.
                Cancer bone pain is common and severe, and partly mediated by hyperexcitability. Animal studies suggest that Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation can reduce hyperalgesia. This study examined the feasibility of evaluating TENS in patients with cancer bone pain in order to optimize methods before a phase III trial.
                Copyright 2010 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. To determine the effectiveness of a multicomponent clinical intervention to reduce pain in outpatients with cancer.
                Sixty-four patients were randomly assigned to receive either a clinical intervention including an information session, the use of a pain diary, and the possibility to contact a physician to adjust the pain medication, or the usual treatment of pain by the staff radiation oncologist. All patients reported their average and worst pain levels at baseline and 2 and 3 weeks after the start of the intervention.
                The study groups were similar with respect to their baseline characteristics and pain levels at randomization. After 3 weeks, the average and worst pain experienced by patients randomized to the clinical intervention group was significantly inferior to the average pain experienced by patients in the control group (2.9/10 vs. 4.4/10 and 4.2/10 vs. 5.5/10, respectively). Results showed that the experimental group patients decreased their pain levels more than the control group patients did over time.
                An intervention including patient education, a pain diary, and defining a procedure for therapeutic adjustments can be effective to improve pain relief in outpatients with cancer. In a prospective randomized trial we examined pain relief and recalcification following radiotherapy for bone metastases.
                One hundred and seven patients with histologically proven breast, lung, prostate or kidney cancer and radiologically confirmed bone metastases were included in this trial. They were stratified to primary tumor sites and randomized in 2 different fractionation schedules: 1 x 8 Gy vs 10 x 3 Gy. Pain relief was registered using of pain score, analgesic usage and subjective perception of pain. The recalcification was measured at the computertomograph. Pain status and recalcification were assessed before, day after, 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months after radiotherapy.
                There was no significant difference in overall (81% vs 78%) and complete (33% vs 31%) pain response. In the single dose group (1 x 8 Gy) the pain response was measured a little rarer. The recalcification showed a significant difference between patients in the fractionated group (173%) and the single dose group (120%, p < 0.0001). In the fractionated group there was a significant difference between patients with breast and lung cancer (p = 0.015). There was a slight trend favoring 10 x 3 Gy in recalcification for all primary tumor sites but only a significant difference in breast cancer (p < 0.001).
                The basis of pain response and recalcification is different. In mere consideration of pain a short-course fractionation is recommendable. This fractionation schedule is effective, well tolerable and short. In consideration of recalcification a more fractionated schedule is recommendable because the biological efficacy is higher and this leads to better stabilisation.
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.