Mercadante, S., Klepstad, P., Kurita, G.P., Sjogren, P., Giarratano, A., & European Palliative Care Research Collaborative (EPCRC). (2015). Sympathetic blocks for visceral cancer pain management: A systematic review and EAPC recommendations. Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, 96, 577–583.
STUDY PURPOSE: To review in literature the effectiveness of sympathetic blocks in clinical trials. Both, neurolytic blocks of sympathetic as celiac plexus block (CPB) and superior hypogastric plexus block (SHPB), used for visceral abdominal pain in patients with pancreatic and gynaecologic cancer
TYPE OF STUDY: Systematic review
DATABASES USED: MedLine, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials
YEARS INCLUDED: Through February 2014
INCLUSION CRITERIA: Trials, both; neurolytic blocks of sympathetic as celiac plexus block (CPB) and superior hypogastric plexus block (SHPB), compared to analgesia or placebo, adult cancer patients and English language
EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Double publications, other clinical indications related, if only complications from sympathetic blocks reported
TOTAL REFERENCES RETRIEVED: 121
EVALUATION METHOD AND COMMENTS ON LITERATURE USED: Eligible trials were analyzed using the GRADE system
FINAL NUMBER STUDIES INCLUDED: 27 clinical trials
TOTAL PATIENTS INCLUDED IN REVIEW: Not specified
SAMPLE RANGE ACROSS STUDIES: Sample range from 20 to 137
KEY SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS: Pancreatic cancer for the CPB and pelvic pain related to gynecologic cancer for SHPB all of them requiring analgesia for their pain
PHASE OF CARE: Not specified or not applicable
APPLICATIONS: Palliative care
CPB versus analgesia significantly decreased pain intensity, use of opioids, and reported less side-effect and better quality of life. SHPB versus morphine was more effective in only one RCT with 50 patients with gynecologic cancer that resulted in decrease in pain and less morphine.
Both, neurolytic blocks techniques, are sure and with few complications. Both are effective to reduce pain and to decrease use of opioids, less data is available from SPHB. Individual complete assessment in each patient is needed before deciding the technique to be done.
No evidence can indicate the use of one or the other of the neurolytic blocks. Although celiac plexus block (CPB) seems recommended for pancreatic cancer pain, best timing for the technique is still uncertain. For superior hypogastric plexus block (SHPB) only after personalized evaluation in each case.
Klepstad, P., Kurita, G.P., Mercadante, S., & Sjogren, P. (2015). Evidence of peripheral nerve blocks for cancer-related pain: A systematic review. Minerva Anestesiologica, 81, 789–793.
STUDY PURPOSE: Review the available evidence in literature to determine the effectiveness on the use of peripheral nerve blocks to treat cancer pain in adult patients.
TYPE OF STUDY: Systematic review
DATABASES USED: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane
YEARS INCLUDED: All available data through February 2014
INCLUSION CRITERIA: No experimental studies of effectiveness of peripheral nerve blocks, adult patients with chronic cancer pain, data includes pain level outcomes, English language.
EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Double publications, management of postoperative pain, studies involving non-cancer patients, lack of pain assessment, experimental studies.
TOTAL REFERENCES RETRIEVED: 155
EVALUATION METHOD AND COMMENTS ON LITERATURE USED: Only case reports were used in the systematic review. No randomized controlled trials were retrieved.
FINAL NUMBER STUDIES INCLUDED: 16
TOTAL PATIENTS INCLUDED IN REVIEW: 79
SAMPLE RANGE ACROSS STUDIES: The cancer diagnoses were identified, but not limited to, thoracic, tongue, renal, breast, lung, and ovarian. Some cases involved metastasis.
KEY SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS: Patients with cancer, different diagnoses
PHASE OF CARE: Not specified or not applicable
APPLICATIONS: Palliative care
Majority of cases yielded adequate pain relief with few side effects reported.
No conclusion can be made based on the lack of formal evidence. Greater than four types of nerve blocks were included in the 16 reviews.
Although pain control is reported with peripheral nerve blocks, lack of sufficient evidence exists to support this intervention in practice based on this review.
Bakeer, A.H., & Abdallah, N.M. (2017). Transdermal fentanyl as an adjuvant to paravertebral block for pain control after breast cancer surgery: A randomized, double-blind controlled trial. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, 11, 384–389.
Aim of the study was to investigate the effect of transdermal fentanyl (TDF) as an adjuvant to paravertebral block (PVB) for pain control after breast cancer surgery.
Trial included 50 females scheduled for mastectomy that were randomly allocated into one of two equal groups. The transdermal (TDF group) used transdermal fentanyl patches (TFPs) 25 mcg per hour applied 10 hours preoperative, then PVB with 20 ml of bupivacaine 0.25% was done before induction of general anesthesia. The PVB group used placebo patches in addition to PVB. Postoperative pain was assessed with a visual analog scale (VAS) score up to 48 hours. IV morphine 0.1 mg/kg was given when the VAS is ≥ 3 or on patient request. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding age, weight, ASA class, and duration of anesthesia and surgery. The primary outcome measures were the time to first request for analgesia and the total analgesic consumption in the first 48 hours.
PHASE OF CARE: Active anti-tumor treatment
Randomized, double-blind trial
Time to first request for analgesia and total analgesic consumption in the first 48 hours were analyzed. Group differences were compared using the independent samples Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney for numerical variables. Chi-square test was used to examine the relationship between qualitative variables. Two-way analysis of variance was used to test the interaction between the two groups' hemodynamic variables. Observer’s Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) and the visual analog scale (VAS) were also used.
The VAS score was significantly lower in TDF group than PVB group from 30 minutes postoperatively up to 24 hours. The time to the first request of additional analgesia was significantly longer in the TDF group (p < 0.001). The total dose of morphine consumption in 48 hours was significantly lower in TDF group (p = 0.039)
The use of fentanyl patches preoperatively and BVP appears to reduce the amount of morphine requested within the first 48 hours postoperatively for breast surgery and correlate with lower VAS scores.
Small sample (< 100)
Preemptive analgesia, if TFP is applied before surgery, it can be used to relieve postoperative pain.
Amato, F., Ceniti, S., Mameli, S., Pisanu, G., Vellucci, R., Palmieri, V., . . . Pisanu, G.M. (2017). High dosage of a fixed combination oxycodone/naloxone prolonged release: Efficacy and tolerability in patients with chronic cancer pain. Supportive Care in Cancer, 25, 3051–3058.
To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of high-dose oxycodone-naloxone (OXN-PR) in chronic cancer pain.
Patients aged 18 years or older with chronic cancer pain of moderate to severe intensity on analgesic therapy and/or who were intolerant to pain medications due to gastrointestinal side effects were switched to OXN-PR. Intensity of pain was measured on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale. Patients were prescribed oral OXN-PR for pain control at the first visit with doses equivalent to morphine dosage. All patients were evaluated by trained clinicians at baseline and after 14, 30, 45, and 60 days. Components of the evaluation included quality of life, symptoms of constipation, and safety evaluations.
Multicenter, prospective 60-day observation on consecutive patients with cancer with uncontrolled moderate to severe chronic pain or intolerant to other analgesics.
Brief Pain Inventory Short Form 7; Bowel Function Index; 0- to 10-point safety evaluation.
At 60 days, 18 (15.1%) of patients had prematurely discontinued the OXN-PR due to death, disease progression, major side effects, lack of efficacy, or personal reasons. OXN-PR was associated with reduction in acute pain intensity compared to baseline at all measurement intervals (p = 0.009). A lower response rate was found in patients without metastatic disease. Bowel function improved after OXN-PR (p < 0.0001). There was also a significant decline in patients utilizing laxatives/enemas. The number of other side effects, such as nausea, somnolence, dizziness, tremors, or confusion was decreased by nearly 50% (p < 0.001).
OXN-PR agonist-antagonist combination was highly effective in managing cancer-related pain, reduced bowel dysfunction, and minimized opioid side effects.
Oxycodone-naloxone is an effective therapy for the management of patients with cancer-related pain who may be intolerable to other therapies.
Baaklini, L.G., Arruda, G.V., & Sakata, R.K. (2017). Assessment of the analgesic effect of magnesium and morphine in combination in patients with cancer pain: A comparative randomized double-blind study. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, 34, 353–357.
To establish whether the analgesic effect of morphine improves in patients with cancer when administered in combination with magnesium
Patients with moderate or severe cancer pain and starting morphine were randomized to 656.6 mg sulfate BID or placebo.
PHASE OF CARE: Not specified
Prospective, randomized, double-blind trial
Pain intensity measured on 0 to 10 scale at baseline and weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4. Functional performance as assessed by Karnofsky and QOL assessed by the EORTC at first and last interview. Dose of morphine and side effects were recorded.
No difference in participant characteristic, pain intensity, morphine dose, functional performance, or QOL. Pain intensity was significantly reduced in both groups. No difference was found in the side effects of morphine except for constipation in week 1.
Morphine combined with magnesium did not lead to better analgesic effects, QOL, or functional performance.
The use of morphine and magnesium did not induce a better analgesic effect or improve functional status or QOL.
Sun, Y., Jiang, F., Gu, J.J., Wang, Y.K., Hua, H., Li, J., . . . Ding, G. (2017). Development and testing of an intelligent pain management system (IPMS) on mobile phones through a randomized trial among Chinese cancer patients: A new approach in cancer pain management. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 5, e108.
To test the intelligent pain management system (IPMS) on mobile phones among patients with cancer with pain.
Data regarding pain assessments, satisfaction, and effectiveness of pain management, and change in QOL was recorded through a mobile phone app, the IPMS.
PHASE OF CARE: Active anti-tumor treatment
Randomized controlled trial
Over the 14-day trial period, the trial group had on a score of on average 0.28 less than the control group (p < 0.001) and at the end of the trial period, 0.75 less than the control group (p < 0.001).
IPMS use as a way to assess pain in patients with cancer has shown promising results. A larger study with a variety of patients with cancer is needed to assess for generalizability.
Using technology such as mobile device apps can be a novel way to maintain constant contact and management of patient pain. It is worthwhile to invest resources in expanding research in this area.
Montgomery, G.H., Sucala, M., Baum, T., & Schnur, J.B. (2017). Hypnosis for symptom control in cancer patients at the end-of-life: A systematic review. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 65, 296–307.
STUDY PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review of the literature was to determine the impact of hypnosis on the most common symptoms patients with cancer experience at the end-of-life: fatigue, sleep disturbances, pain, appetite loss, and dyspnea.
TYPE OF STUDY: Systematic review
DATABASES USED: EMBASE, MEDLINE, COCHRANE, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS
YEARS INCLUDED: From inception through November 2016
INCLUSION CRITERIA: Published in peer-reviewed journal; English language; RCT methodology and efficacy data; assessed at least one of five symptoms: fatigue, sleep disturbances, pain, appetite loss, or dyspnea; included hypnosis intervention; included patients with cancer at end-of-life
EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Not stated
TOTAL REFERENCES RETRIEVED: 94
EVALUATION METHOD AND COMMENTS ON LITERATURE USED: None of the studies met the inclusion criteria
FINAL NUMBER STUDIES INCLUDED: 0
TOTAL PATIENTS INCLUDED IN REVIEW: 0
SAMPLE RANGE ACROSS STUDIES: 0
KEY SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS: None
PHASE OF CARE: Not specified or not applicable
Results from this systematic review revealed no studies were identified that rigorously tested hypnosis as an intervention to improve five of the most common symptoms experienced by patients with cancer at end-of-life. A review of 100 abstracts revealed that none of the identified studies met the inclusion criteria. These results were consistent with previous research that failed to identify RCTs using hypnosis for management of sleep disturbances, fatigue, pain, appetite loss, or dyspnea in terminally ill patients with cancer (Rajasekaran et al., 2005).
Patients with cancer at the end of life commonly experience a multitude of challenging symptoms, specifically, sleep disturbances, fatigue, pain, appetite loss, and dyspnea. Management of these symptoms at end of life is a key part of care and finding interventions to relieve them is a National Institutes of Health (NIH) priority. Although hypnosis proved to be effective in improving symptoms in patients with cancer and other chronic illnesses, hypnosis has not been rigorously studied for symptoms in patients with cancer at the end of life.
Limited number of studies included
The future of hypnosis for improving symptom in patients with cancer at the end of life is promising. However, as a result of the current lack of rigorous research on hypnosis for symptom management in patients with cancer at the end of life, hypnosis cannot be recommended.
Yanagimoto, Y., Takiguchi, S., Miyazaki, Y., Mikami, J., Makino, T., Takahashi, T., . . . Doki, Y. (2016). Comparison of pain management after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy with and without epidural analgesia. Surgery Today, 46, 229–234.
To evaluate the effectiveness of epidural analgesia after LDG
Patients received either combined thoracic epidural and general analgesia or general anesthesia alone.
PHASE OF CARE: Active anti-tumor treatment
Retrospective study of 84 patients with previously untreated gastric cancer who underwent LDG; received either combined thoracic epidural and general anesthesia or general anesthesia alone. Data was recorded on the patients, surgery, postoperative outcomes, and anesthesia-related complications.
The following data was collected: sex, age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) anesthetic risk classification, previous laparotomy, tumor stage, lymph node dissection, reconstructive procedure, length of surgery, blood loss, postoperative complications above grade 2 in Clavien-Dindo classification, number of additional doses of analgesics required during the first three days after surgery, first day of oral intake, first day of flatus, first day of ambulation, length of hospital stay, and incidence of anesthesia-related complications such as nausea, vomiting, hypotension, bradycardia, and urinary retention.
The two groups were not significantly different with regard to the first day of ambulation, first day of oral intak,e or length of hospital stay. The epidural group experienced a significantly earlier first day of flatus and required significantly fewer additional postoperative analgesic doses compared to the non-epidural group. One patient in the epidural group experienced a urinary tract infection, which was cured with antibiotics; nevertheless, the groups did not have significantly different rates of urinary tract infection.
There was no significant differences between the epidural group and the non-epidural group in the degree of nausea, vomiting, hypotension, or bradycardia. However, significantly more (20.6%) cases of postoperative urinary retention were observed in the epidural group than the non-epidural group. Adverse events related to epidural anesthesia, such as nausea, hypotension, and bradycardia, resolved after a brief interruption or dose reduction of the epidural anesthesia.
The optimal postoperative analgesic regimens for laparoscopic gastrectomy have not yet been determined. Our findings suggest that epidural anesthesia could lead to a decreased use of additional analgesics after LDG. However, as found in previous reports, epidural anesthesia was associated with a higher risk of urinary retention.
None included
Oh, T.K., Lim, M.C., Lee, Y., Yun, J.Y., Yeon, S., & Park, S.Y. (2016). Improved postoperative pain control for cytoreductive surgery in women with ovarian cancer using patient-controlled epidural analgesia. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 26, 588–593.
To compare the pain scores and complications of patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer and used either patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) or patient-controlled IV analgesia (PCA) for postoperative pain management
Use of either patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) or patient-controlled IV analgesia (PCA) for postoperative pain management in ovarian cancer surgery
PHASE OF CARE: Active anti-tumor treatment
Retrospective review of pain scores for postoperative days (POD) 0-5 and the incidence of complications were examined and compared in patients receiving PCEA and PCA.
Numeric rating scale was used to measure differences in intensity of pain
Of 105 patients, 38 received PCEA and 67 received PCA. Pain scores were significantly lower in the PCEA group than the PCA group at POD 0, 1, and 3 and tended to be lower in the PCEA group at PODs 2, 4, and 5. PCEA provided significantly better pain relief as analyzed by a mixed-effect model.
PCEA was more effective for postoperative pain management compared with PCA from POD 1 to POD 3 in patients with ovarian cancer who underwent cytoreductive surgery, without increased morbidity.
None included
Serce, S., Ovayolu, O., Pirbudak, L., & Ovayolu, N. (2018). The effect of acupressure on pain in cancer patients with bone metastasis: A nonrandomized controlled trial. Integrative Cancer Therapies, 17, 728–736.
To evaluate the effect of acupressure in managing pain experienced by patients with cancer with bone metastases
Study participants received a 10 minute acupressure session prior to each radiotherapy treatment for a total of eight sessions. Acupressure was applied for up to 10 seconds to 31 points on the body surface for approximately 5 minutes total. Acupressure is delivered by applying physical pressure and is believed to provide energy circulation and balance in the body.
PHASE OF CARE: Active anti-tumor treatment
Non-randomized controlled trial
Pain level was measured using a visual analog scale at baseline and after the 8 acupressure sessions. In addition, participants completed a questionnaire at baseline which collected sociodemographic and disease-related information.
The difference in the intervention group’s mean pain score from baseline (7.6, SD = 1.9) and after acupressure (6.8, SD = 1.9) was statistically significant (p = 0.004) compared to the control group’s pain level (baseline = 8.2, SD = 1.7; after acupressure = 7.7, SD = 2.1; p = 0.056).
Although a statistically significant difference in pain level was found for the intervention group, it cannot be concluded that acupressure is effective in reducing pain in patients with cancer with bone metastases. Due to the limitations identified below and since only 31 of the 60 study participants had metastatic cancer, rigorous testing of this intervention needs to be conducted before acupressure can be recommended for practice in patients with bone metastases.
Although this study did not provide scientific evidence for the use of acupressure in managing bone metastases, side effects are rare and the benefits of acupressure outweigh harms. If both the clinician and patient agree that this is an appropriate intervention for managing pain, nurses should know who to refer the patient to for acupressure treatment. In addition, acupressure appears to be an intervention which nurses could learn with brief training.