Current Pain and Headache Reports

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 254–259 | Cite as

Intrathecal therapy for the management of cancer pain



Inadequately managed cancer pain continues to be a significant problem despite increased awareness, improved knowledge and understanding of pain pathophysiology, and standardized treatment guidelines of this distressing and debilitating symptom complex. Small subsets of patients who are refractory to optimal medical management because of drug toxicity or unsatisfactory analgesia may be candidates for exteriorized or implantable intrathecal drug delivery systems. By delivering opioids and other agents directly to the central nervous system, intrathecal drug administration can offer superior pain relief with less toxicity at a fraction of the systemic dose. With adjuncts such as local anesthetics and clonidine, intrathecal therapy also allows for broader therapeutic options in the most difficult of cases. In general, intrathecal therapy is underused despite evidence of its efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Cleeland CS, Gonin R, Hatfield AK, et al.: Pain and its treatment in outpatients with metastatic cancer. N Engl J Med 1994, 330:592–596.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vainio A, Auvinen A: Prevalence of symptoms among patients with advanced cancer: an international collaborative study. Symptom Prevalence Group. J Pain Symptom Manage 1996, 12:3–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meuser T, Pietruck C, Radbruch L, et al.: Symptoms during cancer pain treatment following WHO-guidelines: a longitudinal follow-up study of symptom prevalence, severity, and etiology. Pain 2001, 93:247–257.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith TJ, Staats PS, Deer T, et al.: 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 2002, 20:4040–4049. This important study compares, in a randomized and controlled manner, the outcomes of implanted drug delivery systems compared with conventional medical management. The findings in favor of IT drug delivery are discussed in the text.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baker L, Lee M, Regnard C, et al.: Evolving spinal analgesia practice in palliative care. Palliat Med 2004, 18:507–515.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nitescu P, Hultman E, Appelgren L, et al.: Bacteriology, drug stability, and exchange of percutaneous delivery systems and antibacterial filters in long-term intrathecal infusion of opioid drugs and bupivacaine in "refractory" pain. Clin J Pain 1992, 8:324–337.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bahar M, Rosen M, Vickers MD: Chronic cannulation of the intradural or extradural space in the rat. Br J Anaesth 1984, 56:405–410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crul BJ, Delhaas EM: Technical complications during long-term subarachnoid or epidural administration of morphine in terminally ill cancer patients: a review of 140 cases. Reg Anesth 1991, 16:209–213.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bedder MD, Burchiel K, Larson A: Cost analysis of two implantable narcotic delivery systems. J Pain Symptom Manage 1991, 6:368–373. This small study looks at the economics of exteriorized versus implanted IT drug delivery systems, and finds that therapy duration greater than 3 months favors an implanted system.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith TJ, Coyne PJ, Staats PS, et al.: 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 2005, 16:825–833.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stearns L, Boortz-Marx R, Du Pen S, et al.: Intrathecal drug delivery for the management of cancer pain: a multidisciplinary consensus of best clinical practices. J Support Oncol 2005, 3:399–408. These consensus guidelines offer a standardized approach to IT prescribing in the cancer patient, and also contain a great deal of very useful information regarding the practical management of implanted IT pumps.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eisenach J, Detweiler D, Hood D: Hemodynamic and analgesic actions of epidurally administered clonidine. Anesthesiology 1993, 78:277–287.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ackerman LL, Follett KA, Rosenquist RW: Long-term outcomes during treatment of chronic pain with intrathecal clonidine or clonidine/opioid combinations. J Pain Symptom Manage 2003, 26:668–677.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Horlocker TT, Wedel DJ, Benzon H, et al.: Regional anesthesia in the anticoagulated patient: defining the risks (the second ASRA Consensus Conference on Neuraxial Anesthesia and Anticoagulation). Reg Anesth Pain Med 2003, 28:172–197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Follett KA, Boortz-Marx RL, Drake JM, et al.: Prevention and management of intrathecal drug delivery and spinal cord stimulation system infections. Anesthesiology 2004, 100:1582–1594. Important guidelines on minimizing the infective risks of IT drug delivery.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coffey RJ, Burchiel K: Inflammatory mass lesions associated with intrathecal drug infusion catheters: report and observations on 41 patients. Neurosurgery 2002, 50:78–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hassenbusch S, Burchiel K, Coffey RJ, et al.: Management of intrathecal catheter-tip inflammatory masses: a consensus statement. Pain Med 2002, 3:313–323.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lossignol DA, Obiols-Portis M, Body JJ: Successful use of ketamine for intractable cancer pain. Support Care Cancer 2005, 13:188–193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnesthesiologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations