Intraspinal techniques for pain management in cancer patients: a systematic review
This systematic review outlines current evidence regarding the effectiveness of intraspinal techniques for cancer pain and addresses practical implementation issues.
A search of electronic databases identified systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of intraspinal techniques in the setting of cancer pain. An environmental scan was completed via the internet to identify practice guidelines and resource documents addressing organizational and implementation issues in the delivery of intraspinal analgesia. Elements reviewed included patient selection, contraindications, monitoring, aftercare, follow-up, hospital discharge equipment, health personnel, patient education, and safety.
Three systematic reviews, three consensus conferences, and 12 RCTs met the inclusion criteria for evidence of effectiveness. No single systematic review or consensus conference included all relevant RCTs or specifically addressed the use of intraspinal techniques for cancer pain. Six RCTs compared intraspinal techniques alone or combined with other interventions alone or in combination, four compared different intraspinal medications, and two compared different intraspinal techniques. In general, the evidence supported the use of intraspinal techniques for cancer pain management. The two main indications consistently identified were intractable pain not controlled by other conventional medical routes and/or side effects from conventional pain management strategies preventing dose escalation. Reports indicate intraspinal analgesia is equally or more effective than conventional medical management and often associated with fewer side effects. Thirteen resource documents addressed issues surrounding the delivery of intraspinal analgesia and program implementation.
Intraspinal techniques monitored by an interprofessional health care team should be included as part of a comprehensive cancer pain management program.
KeywordsIntraspinal analgesia Cancer pain management Neoplasms
Conflict of interest
The authors declared no actual or potential conflicts of interest in relation to this report.
- 2.World Health Organization (1986) Cancer Pain Relief. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 4.World Health Organization (1996) Cancer pain relief and palliative care: report of a WHO Expert Committee, 3rd edn. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 7.Carr D, Goudas L, Lawrence D, Pirl W, Lau J, DeVine D, Kupelnick B, Miller K (2002) Management of cancer symptoms: pain, depression, and fatigue. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) 61:1–5Google Scholar
- 12.Smith TJ, Staats PS, Deer T, Stearns LJ, Rauck RL, Boortz-Marx RL et al (2002) Randomized clinical trial of an implantable drug delivery system compared with comprehensive medical management for refractory cancer pain: impact on pain, drug-related toxicity, and survival. J Clin Oncol 20(19):4040–4049CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Dahm P, Lundborg C, Janson M, Olegård C, Nitescu P (2000) Comparison of 0.5% intrathecal bupivacaine with 0.5% intrathecal ropivacaine in the treatment of refractory cancer and noncancer pain conditions: results from a prospective, crossover, double-blind, randomized study. Reg Anesth Pain Med 25(5):480–487PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Oncology Nursing Society (2004) Access device guidelines: recommendations for nursing practice and education. 2nd ed. Pittsburgh: Oncology Nursing Society (ONS)Google Scholar
- 24.British Pain Society (2006) Intrathecal drug delivery for the management of pain and spasticity in adults; recommendations for best clinical practice. British Pain Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 25.Broadfield L, Banerjee S, Jewers H, Pollett AJ, Simpson J (2005) Guidelines for the management of cancer-related pain in adults. Supportive Care Cancer Site Team. Cancer Care Nova ScotiaGoogle Scholar
- 26.Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) (2000) Control of pain in patients with cancer: a national clinical guideline. Edinburgh: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines NetworkGoogle Scholar
- 27.Clinical practice guidelines: cancer pain. Singapore: Ministry of Health; 2003Google Scholar
- 28.Miaskowski C, Cleary J, Burney R, Coyne P, Finley R, Foster R et al (2005) Guideline for the management of cancer pain in adults and children. APS Clinical Practice Guideline Series, 3rd edn. American Pain Society, Glenview, ILGoogle Scholar
- 29.NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (2007) Adult cancer pain. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Fort Washington, PAGoogle Scholar
- 30.Practice guidelines for cancer pain management: a report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on pain management, cancer pain section. Anesthesiology, 1996 May, 84:1243–1257Google Scholar
- 31.Palliative epidural analgesia (2004) Interdisciplinary education & resource manual. Calgary Health Region, CalgaryGoogle Scholar
- 32.Guidelines for the management of intraspinal catheters in the community in Cornwall. St Austell (UK): Cornwall Healthcare NHS Trust; 2001Google Scholar
- 33.Nursing policy, procedure, protocol manual. Pain (chronic and chronic malignant): epidural and intrathecal infusions. The Ottawa Hospital; 2007Google Scholar
- 34.The management of epidural drugs. St. Wilfrid’s Hospice, Eastbourne, UK; 2001Google Scholar
- 35.Infusion Nurses Society (2006) Infusion nursing standards of practice. J Infus Nurs 29(1 Suppl):S1–S92Google Scholar
- 36.The AGREE Collaboration. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE): The AGREE instrument. London: The AGREE Collaboration; 2001. Available from http://www.agreecollaboration.org/
- 37.Deer T, Krames ES, Hassenbusch SJ, Burton A, Caraway D, Dupen S et al (2007) Polyanalgesic Cnsensus conference 2007: recommendations for the management of pain by intrathecal (intraspinal) drug delivery: report of an interdisciplinary expert panel. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface 10:300–328Google Scholar
- 39.Smith TJ, Coyne PJ, Staats PS, Deer T, Stearns LJ, Rauck RL et al (2005) An implantable drug delivery system (IDDS) for refractory cancer pain provides sustained pain control, less drug-related toxicity, and possibly better survival compared with comprehensive medical management (CMM). Ann Oncol 16(5):825–833CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.Ellis DJ, Dissanayake S, McGuire D, Charapata SG, Staats PS, Wallace MS et al (2008) Continuous intrathecal infusion of ziconotide for treatment of chronic malignant and nonmalignant pain over 12 months: A prospective, open-label study. Neuromodulation 11(1):40–49Google Scholar