Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online:630
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
SPECIAL ARTICLE (GUIDELINES)
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 33  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 42-48

The Indian Society for Study of Pain, Cancer Pain Special Interest Group guidelines on interventional management for cancer pain


1 Department of Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Management, CK Birla Hospital for Women, Gurugram, Haryana, India
2 Department of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
3 Department of Pain and Palliative Care, Cytecare Hospital, Bengaluru, India
4 Department of Onco-anaesthesia and Palliative Medicine, Dr. B.R.A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
5 Department of Palliative Medicine and Supportive Care, Manipal Comprehensive Cancer Care Centre, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India
6 Department of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain, R.G. Kar Medical College, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Date of Submission15-Oct-2019
Date of Decision19-Dec-2019
Date of Acceptance22-Dec-2019
Date of Web Publication14-Jan-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Raghu S Thota
Department of Anaesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, E Borges Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400 012, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijpn.ijpn_84_19

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


The Indian Society for Study of Pain (ISSP), Cancer Pain Special Interest Group guidelines on interventional management for cancer pain in adults provide a structured, stepwise approach which will help to improve the management of cancer pain and to provide the patients with minimally acceptable quality of life. The guidelines have been developed based on the available literature and evidence, to suit the needs, patient population, and situations in India. A questionnaire based on the key elements of each sub draft addressing certain inconclusive areas where evidence was lacking was made available on the ISSP website and circulated by e-mail to all the ISSP and Indian Association of Palliative Care members. We recommend using interventional management when conventional therapy fails to offer adequate benefits or causes undesirable side effects. Vertebroplasty should be offered to patients with uncontrolled bone pain when expertise is available.

Keywords: Cancer pain management, cancer pain management guidelines, cancer pain special interest group, celiac plexus neurolysis, Indian Society for Study of Pain, interventional cancer pain management


How to cite this article:
Ahmed A, Thota RS, Chatterjee A, Jain P, Ramanjulu R, Bhatnagar S, Salins N, Bhattacharya D. The Indian Society for Study of Pain, Cancer Pain Special Interest Group guidelines on interventional management for cancer pain. Indian J Pain 2019;33, Suppl S1:42-8

How to cite this URL:
Ahmed A, Thota RS, Chatterjee A, Jain P, Ramanjulu R, Bhatnagar S, Salins N, Bhattacharya D. The Indian Society for Study of Pain, Cancer Pain Special Interest Group guidelines on interventional management for cancer pain. Indian J Pain [serial online] 2019 [cited 2020 Jan 24];33, Suppl S1:42-8. Available from: http://www.indianjpain.org/text.asp?2019/33/4/42/276067




  Introduction Top


Worldwide, low- and middle-income countries are experiencing significant increases in rates of noncommunicable diseases, including cancer.[1] In India, more than one million new cases of cancer are diagnosed each year, and it is estimated that the cancer burden in India will almost double during the coming 20 years.[2] The incidence of pain in advanced stages of cancer approaches 70%–80%.[3] A meta-analysis of epidemiological studies on cancer pain revealed that the pain prevalence rate was 39.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 33.3–45.3) after curative treatment; 55.0% (95% CI 45.9–64.2) during anticancer treatment; 66.4% (95% CI 58.1–74.7) in advanced, metastatic, or terminal disease; and 50.7% (95% CI 37.2–64.1) in all cancer stages.[4] It was also shown that over 38.0% of all cancer patients experienced moderate-to-severe pain (pain score >4/10).[4] In a study done in four regional cancer centers in India, a total of 88% of patients reported experiencing pain for about 7 days, and approximately 60% reported that their worst pain was severe.[5]

Although pain is often the primary presenting symptom of cancer and despite the presence of guidelines and the availability of opioids, cancer pain still remains undertreated. In a systematic review[6] published in 2014 using the pain management index, approximately one-third of patients did not receive appropriate analgesia proportional to their pain intensity (PI), as advised by the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder.

The WHO states that “drug treatment is the mainstay of cancer pain management.”[7] Pain treatment using the WHO guidelines provides pain relief in majority of patients, though effective pain relief may take a long time in the third of the patients. Even in the best hands, the WHO analgesic ladder might leave 12% of patients with inadequately managed pain, which is when interventional techniques should be considered.[8] These guidelines are developed to improve the management of cancer pain and to provide the patients with a minimal acceptable quality of life.


  Methods Top


Literature search [Appendix IV] was carried out using PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Database, Google Scholar, and OVID Search engine. The search included studies published in the English language until November 2018. Where evidence is lacking, recommendations were made by consensus (good clinical practice), following extensive discussion among the committee members and considering the results of the questionnaire [Appendix V] circulated during the meeting, and also were made available on the Indian Society for Study of Pain (ISSP) website and circulated by e-mail to all the ISSP and Indian Association of Palliative Care (IAPC) members.

There is a limited amount of high-quality evidence for interventional pain management techniques to manage cancer pain due to difficulties in performing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in this therapeutic area. The interventional treatment should be offered when conventional therapy fails to offer adequate benefit and or causes undesirable side effects.

The following are the prerequisites and selection criteria of interventional techniques for pain management:

  1. When standard treatments such as systemic drug therapy (oral, transdermal, subcutaneous, etc.) fail to offer adequate pain relief or cause unbearable side effects
  2. Adequate counseling of the patient and patient care providers about the procedure (including the benefits, risks, expenses, complications, failure, alternate treatment availability, aftercare provisions)
  3. Written informed consent
  4. After ruling out other causes of incomplete or inadequate analgesia
  5. When expertise in performing the procedure is available
  6. There are no contraindications to the planned procedure.


Commonly used interventional procedures

  1. Neurodestructive procedures for well-localized pain syndromes


    1. Head and neck: Peripheral nerve block
    2. Upper extremity: Brachial plexus neurolysis, intrathecal neurolysis
    3. Thoracic wall: Epidural neurolysis, intercostal neurolysis, intrathecal neurolysis
    4. Upper abdominal pain (visceral): Celiac plexus block, splanchnic neurolysis
    5. Midline pelvic pain: Superior hypogastric plexus block
    6. Rectal pain: Intrathecal neurolytic saddle block, midline superior hypogastric plexus block, ganglion impar block
    7. Unilateral pain syndromes: Cordotomy.


  2. Radiological interventions: Percutaneous vertebroplasty/kyphoplasty, radiofrequency ablation for bone lesions
  3. Neurostimulation procedures for cancer-related symptoms (i.e., peripheral neuropathy)
  4. Regional infusions (requires spinal intrathecal infusion pump) easy to internalize implanted pump; for infusions of opioids, local anesthetics, and clonidine.


Commonly used neurolytic agents are absolute alcohol (diluted to 50% alcohol) and 6% aqueous phenol and 6% phenol in glycerin. One retrospective study[9] comparing the effectiveness, duration of benefit, and complication profile of these two agents had shown no difference in pain outcomes, complications, and duration of benefit. Thus, we recommend that the choice of neurolytic agent can be appropriately left to the good clinical judgment and availability of the expertise.

Celiac plexus neurolysis

The celiac plexus neurolysis is utilized for pain arising from cancer of pancreas, liver and biliary tract, kidney, ureter, spleen, bowel up to proximal third of transverse colon. Earlier, most of the neurolysis was done using the landmark-guided or fluoroscopy-guided technique; however, recently, these interventions are done by newer modalities such as endoscopic ultrasound, trans-abdominal ultrasound, or sometimes computerized tomographic guidance also. There is good pain relief and lowering of opioid dose with reduced side effects and improved quality of life after the neurolysis. There are four RCTs comparing fluoroscopic-guided celiac plexus neurolysis with the standard WHO analgesic ladder, while one comparing computed tomography (CT)-guided celiac neurolysis with the WHO analgesic ladder showed good and prolonged relief in pain together with reduced opioid intake and improved quality of life.[10],[11],[12],[13],[14] Furthermore, no RCT compared endoscopic or trans-abdominal ultrasound-guided neurolysis with standard treatment. However, there are only observational studies on the ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis showing positive results.[15],[16],[17] Two recent meta-analyses have shown endoscopic-guided celiac ganglion neurolysis is effective in relieving pain in 80% and 72% of cancer patients, respectively.[18],[19] Furthermore, the Cochrane review had demonstrated that celiac plexus neurolysis has fewer adverse effects and can be considered for pain relief.[20]

Splanchnic nerve neurolysis

Splanchnic nerve neurolysis, although described in the books as an alternative to celiac plexus neurolysis for relief of pain from abdominal cancers, has limited evidence with only one observational and three retrospective studies.[9],[21],[22]

The evidence on the radiofrequency splanchnic nerve neurolysis is limited with only one retrospective study.[23] Some clinicians combine radiofrequency lesioning with neurolytic block for enhanced effect.

Superior hypogastric plexus block

The superior hypogastric plexus neurolysis has also been used for the management of pain arising from pelvic organs. One RCT and three observational studies show good and prolonged relief after the neurolysis of the superior hypogastric plexus.[18],[19],[26],[27] The neurolysis can be done under fluoroscopy, CT, or ultrasound guidance,[24],[25] with the CT and ultrasonography approach having the advantage of supine position and less chance of vascular injury.

Ganglion impar block

There are few case series or reports on the use of ganglion impar block[28],[29],[30],[31],[32] for the relief of pain arising out of perianal structures. The block can be performed with the aid of ultrasound, fluoroscopy, or CT guidance. Furthermore, it can be combined with superior hypogastric block for combined pelvic and perianal pain.

Intercostal neurolysis

Although the intercostal neurolysis or radiofrequency ablation has been used for chest wall pain from cancer, the evidence pertaining to it is limited with observational studies and case series.[33],[34],[35],[36]

Brachial plexus neurolysis

The brachial plexus neurolysis has been useful for relieving intractable pain arising from tumor compressing upon it; however, it leads to loss of motor function of the limb and should be attempted very cautiously.[37],[38],[39] The use of continuous brachial plexus block with a catheter can be a good alternative and has been described in a few descriptive studies.[40],[41] In selected patients, even single-shot injection with local esthetics along with corticosteroid or liposomal bupivacaine can be useful.[37],[38] Intrathecal selective sensory neurolysis is a preferred option as it does not compromise motor function.

Epidural neurolysis

Evidence on interlaminar or transforaminal epidural neurolysis is limited with few case series only.[42],[43] However, these are rarely attempted nowadays as much safer options such as intrathecal delivery of opioids or other agents are available.

Intrathecal neurolysis

Similar to the epidural one, the literature on the intrathecal neurolysis is limited with a few old studies or recent case reports.[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49] Recently, these are rarely attempted except in specialist centers as much safer options such as intra-intra-thecae delivery of opioids or other agents are available. Most commonly chemical agents such as alcohol with concentrations of 50%–100% and phenol 6%–12% are used for neurolysis. Alcohol is hypobaric, and thus, the affected side is positioned up at 45° angle; phenol is hyperbaric, and thus, the affected side is positioned down at 45° angle. Its limitations include inadequate pain control with the progression of the disease, limited duration of effect, motor weakness of lower limb, and rectal or bladder sphincter dysfunction.[44]

The procedure is helpful in patients with <1-year life expectancy with well-localized intractable pain and also in somatic than visceral pain.[50]

Epidural, intrathecal, or intraventricular opioid infusions

It has been widely accepted that this technique provides good benefits to select group of patients in whom the pain is not controlled by medications given systemically nor have undesirable side effects at doses required to provide the analgesia. However, there is only limited number of high-quality studies on this. There are two randomized trials[51],[52] showing both improved analgesia and prolonged survival in patients receiving neuraxial opioids as compared to conventional medical management. Another trial[53] also showed improved analgesia with neuraxial opioids. Furthermore, another high-quality review[54] has found similar efficacy of opioids delivered through intrathecal, epidural, or intraventricular route.

There are different types of pumps, ranging from percutaneous catheters to fully implantable programmable pumps. There is less incidence of infection with the implantable pumps along with lower maintenance. Furthermore, after 3 months, the cost of therapy of implantable pumps is less than nonimplantable devices.

Normally, for patients with a life expectancy of <3 months, an epidural route is preferred; whereas an intrathecal route is preferred for patients with a life expectancy of more than 3 months. The epidural catheter should be placed percutaneously and fixed at skin or by subcutaneous tunneling with medication being delivered through a programmable pump or syringe driver. These patients if ambulatory can be managed as outpatients also.

The intrathecal medications can be deceived via an external pump or an internal programmable pump. The programmable pumps need refilling after few weeks or months, and these patients need to in close follow-up with the managing specialists.

Most commonly, opioids such as morphine are used for patients who respond partially to systemic morphine and/or are limited by side effects. For patients, who fail to respond to opioids, other medications such as local anesthetics, clonidine, and ziconotide can also be used and have shown good results.[55],[56],[57]

For pain in the head and face intraventricular opioids can be administered via an implanted pump and catheter.

Finally, these interventions should only be undertaken in centers with expertise in these techniques and with aftercare.[58]

Cementoplasty

Cementoplasty includes the vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty, sacroplasty, acetabuloplasty, and osteoplasty. Cementoplasty includes the injection of acrylic bone cement into the malignant bone cavities to either relieve the pain or stabile the bone or both. Vertebroplasty is the injection of bone cement into the vertebral body. The injection of cement into the sacrum, acetabulum, and other weight-bearing bones is referred to as sacroplasty, acetabuloplasty, and osteoplasty, respectively. Kyphoplasty involves the restoration of the original height of the vertebrae by inflating a balloon inside the cavity of the vertebrae and filling up of the space created with bone cement. Sometimes, cementoplasty is considered after tumor ablation using radiofrequency techniques.

There is no randomized trial of the cementoplasty procedures; however, there are few observational studies and case series. A recent review of the studies has shown that these procedures have rapidly and significantly reduced the PI reduced the requirement of opioids and functional disabilities.[59] However, these procedures were associated with cement leakage, and most of those are asymptomatic and are less commonly associated with kyphoplasty.[60]

In patients with sacral metastasis, the injection of cement into sacrum or pelvic bones has shown to reduce pain and improve mobility. The evidence for sacroplasty comes from a few case series and retrospective studies.[61],[62],[63],[64] The complications rates are similar to vertebroplasty and mostly asymptomatic.[65]

Summary

The ISSP Cancer Pain Special Interest Group (SIG) guidelines on interventional pain management for cancer pain in adults emphasize the importance interventional pain management treatment as adjunct therapy for pharmacological cancer pain management [Table 1].
Table 1: Summary of recommendations

Click here to view


We believe that the ISSP Cancer Pain SIG guidelines on onterventional management for cancer pain in adults will help pain specialist, anesthesiologists, palliative care specialists, and others who are involved in cancer pain care, in the safe management of cancer pain, and provide the patients with a minimally acceptable quality of life.

Acknowledgements

The ISSP Cancer Pain SIG guidelines' Guidelines Development Committee (GDC) would like to thank the President, Secretary of ISSP, the Governing Council of ISSP as well the Chairman of SIG. The ISSP Cancer Pain SIG guidelines' GDC would like to thank the members of the ISSP, the IAPC, and other anesthesiologists who responded to the questionnaire and gave their valuable feedback which helped in the formulation of these guidelines.

The ISSP Cancer Pain SIG would like to wholeheartedly thank the internal review committee and the external review committee.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Disclaimer

The contents of this publication are guidelines to clinical practice, based on the best available evidence at the time of development. These guidelines should neither be construed or serve as a standard of care.

These guidelines do not represent the minimum standard of practice, nor are they a substitution for good clinical judgment. These guidelines need to be used in conjunction with patient assessment and may be individualized as per patient need.

These guidelines were developed in 2018-2019 and may be reviewed again in 2024 or sooner, based on the availability of new evidences.


  Appendix Top


Appendix IV: Literature search

The following terms or MESH terms were used either in combination or single

”Pain”[Mesh], “Prevalence”[Mesh], “Signs and symptoms”[Mesh], “Syndrome”[Mesh], “Diagnosis”[Mesh], presentation, “Neoplasms”[Mesh], tumors, cancers, physical assessment,” “Pain Measurement”[Mesh], “pain scale,” psychosocial, assessment, “cognitively impaired,” “psychological distress,” distress, “Emotions”[Mesh] “Nursing”[Mesh], “prime assessor,” “Palliative Care”[Mesh], “supportive care,” “cancer pain management,” “Patient-Centered Care”[Mesh], “Patient Care Team”[Mesh], “Patient Care Management”[Mesh], “Primary Health Care”[Mesh], “Physicians, Family”[Mesh]), interdisciplinary, Education”[Mesh], outcome, barrier, “World Health Organization”[Mesh], “Guideline “[Publication Type], “cancer pain ladder,” “World Health Organization three step analgesic ladder”[Mesh], Drug Therapy”[Mesh], “Analgesics, Opioid”[Mesh], “administration and dosage”[Subheading], titration, “breakthrough pain,” “Drug Tolerance”[Mesh], “Adjuvants, “adjuvant analgesics,” “pregabalin “[Substance Name], “Ketamine”[Mesh], “Dexamethasone”[Mesh], corticosteroid, “opioid rotation,” “opioid switching,” “alternative opioid,” “Bisphosphonates”[Mesh], “Sedation score,” “Morphine protocol,” “Radiotherapy”[Mesh], “Soft Tissue Neoplasms”[Mesh], “Behavior Therapy”[Mesh], “Cognitive Therapy”[Mesh], “Physical Therapy Modalities”[Mesh], “Acupuncture”[Mesh], “Massage”[Mesh], “Exercise”[Mesh], “Exercise”[Mesh], “Nerve Block, Celiac plexus block, cementoplasty, stellate ganglion block, superior hypogastric plexus block, ganglion impar block”[Mesh], “Injections, Spinal”[Mesh], “intrathecal therapy,” “Vertebroplasty”[Mesh], “follow- up,” “Physician's Role “[Mesh], “community care,” “home program*,” “general practitioner,” hospice, “pain clinic,” “Outpatients”[Mesh], “Outpatient Clinics, Hospital”[Mesh], “Ambulatory Care”[Mesh].

Appendix V: Cancer pain management questionnaire

  1. How many patients of cancer pain do you manage per month?
  2. What is the most frequent cancer pain that you encounter in your daily practice?
  3. What are the clinical presentations of cancer-related pain?
  4. What are the methods used for clinical assessment of cancer pain?
  5. What are the principles of management of pain in patients with cancer?
  6. What is the WHO analgesic ladder? What are its principles? How effective is it in clinical practice?
  7. Do you follow the WHO step ladder approach for cancer pain management?
  8. What do you prefer for Step II and Step III of the WHO ladder?
  9. What non-pharmacological techniques do you use to manage cancer pain
  10. Do you screen all patients of substance abuse? If yes, which scale do you use?
  11. What medications do you use to manage cancer pain
  12. What are the major side effects you observe due to pharmacological management and how do you manage it?
  13. What are the adjuvant analgesics in cancer pain management?
  14. What are the pharmacological strategies for breakthrough pain and other acute pain crises?
  15. What are the roles of anti-cancer therapy in the management of cancer pain?
  16. Do you manage patients using interventional techniques? If yes, which interventional techniques and in what percentage of patients?
  17. What are the relative efficacy and safety of current invasive treatments for the treatment of cancer-related pain?
  18. Do you think current treatment guidelines for cancer pain management are sufficient? If no, what changes do you suggest?
  19. According to you, what steps need to be taken to spread awareness regarding cancer pain management




 
  References Top

1.
Miranda JJ, Kinra S, Casas JP, Davey Smith G, Ebrahim S. Non-communicable diseases in low- and middle-income countries: Context, determinants and health policy. Trop Med Int Health 2008;13:1225-34.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Mallath MK, Taylor DG, Badwe RA, Rath GK, Shanta V, Pramesh CS, et al. The growing burden of cancer in India: Epidemiology and social context. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:e205-12.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Saini S, Bhatnagar S. Cancer pain management in developing countries. Indian J Palliat Care 2016;22:373-7.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
4.
van den Beuken-van Everdingen MH, Hochstenbach LM, Joosten EA, Tjan-Heijnen VC, Janssen DJ. Update on prevalence of pain in patients with cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pain Symptom Manage 2016;51:1070-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Doyle KE, El Nakib SK, Rajagopal MR, Babu S, Joshi G, Kumarasamy V, et al. Predictors and prevalence of pain and its management in four regional cancer hospitals in India. J Glob Oncol 2018;4:1-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Greco MT, Roberto A, Corli O, Deandrea S, Bandieri E, Cavuto S, et al. Quality of cancer pain management: An update of a systematic review of undertreatment of patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:4149-54.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
World Health Organization. Cancer Pain Relief: With a Guide to Opioid Availability. World Health Organization; 1996.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Forbes K. Pain in patients with cancer: The World Health Organization analgesic ladder and beyond. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2011;23:379-80.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Koyyalagunta D, Engle MP, Yu J, Feng L, Novy DM. The effectiveness of alcohol versus phenol based splanchnic nerve neurolysis for the treatment of intra-abdominal cancer pain. Pain Physician 2016;19:281-92.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Kawamata M, Ishitani K, Ishikawa K, Sasaki H, Ota K, Omote K, et al. Comparison between celiac plexus block and morphine treatment on quality of life in patients with pancreatic cancer pain. Pain 1996;64:597-602.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Mercadante S. Celiac plexus block versus analgesics in pancreatic cancer pain. Pain 1993;52:187-92.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Polati E, Finco G, Gottin L, Bassi C, Pederzoli P, Ischia S. Prospective randomized double-blind trial of neurolytic coeliac plexus block in patients with pancreatic cancer. Br J Surg 1998;85:199-201.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Wong GY, Schroeder DR, Carns PE, Wilson JL, Martin DP, Kinney MO, et al. Effect of neurolytic celiac plexus block on pain relief, quality of life, and survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004;291:1092-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Zhang CL, Zhang TJ, Guo YN, Yang LQ, He MW, Shi JZ, et al. Effect of neurolytic celiac plexus block guided by computerized tomography on pancreatic cancer pain. Dig Dis Sci 2008;53:856-60.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Tadros MY, Elia RZ. Percutaneous ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis in advanced upper abdominal cancer pain. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2015;46:993-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Bhatnagar S, Gupta D, Mishra S, Thulkar S, Chauhan H. Bedside ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis with bilateral paramedian needle entry technique can be an effective pain control technique in advanced upper abdominal cancer pain. J Palliat Med 2008;11:1195-9.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Bhatnagar S, Joshi S, Rana SP, Mishra S, Garg R, Ahmed SM. Bedside ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis in upper abdominal cancer patients: A randomized, prospective study for comparison of percutaneous bilateral paramedian vs. unilateral paramedian needle-insertion technique. Pain Pract 2014;14:E63-8.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Kaufman M, Singh G, Das S, Concha-Parra R, Erber J, Micames C, et al. Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus block and celiac plexus neurolysis for managing abdominal pain associated with chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. J Clin Gastroenterol 2010;44:127-34.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Puli SR, Reddy JB, Bechtold ML, Antillon MR, Brugge WR. EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis for pain due to chronic pancreatitis or pancreatic cancer pain: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Dig Dis Sci 2009;54:2330-7.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Arcidiacono PGG, Calori G, Carrara S, McNicol ED, Testoni PA. Celiac plexus block for pancreatic cancer pain in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011;3:CD007519.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Ahmed A, Arora D. Fluoroscopy-guided neurolytic splanchnic nerve block for intractable pain from upper abdominal malignancies in patients with distorted celiac axis anatomy: An effective alternative to celiac plexus neurolysis – A retrospective study. Indian J Palliat Care 2017;23:274-81.  Back to cited text no. 21
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
22.
Shwita AH, Amr YM, Okab MI. Comparative study of the effects of the retrocrural celiac plexus block versus splanchnic nerve block, c-arm guided, for upper gastrointestinal tract tumors on pain relief and the quality of life at a six-month follow up. Korean J Pain 2015;28:22-31.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Papadopoulos D, Kostopanagiotou G, Batistaki C. Bilateral thoracic splanchnic nerve radiofrequency thermocoagulation for the management of end-stage pancreatic abdominal cancer pain. Pain Physician 2013;16:125-33.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Mishra S, Bhatnagar S, Rana SP, Khurana D, Thulkar S. Efficacy of the anterior ultrasound-guided superior hypogastric plexus neurolysis in pelvic cancer pain in advanced gynecological cancer patients. Pain Med 2013;14:837-42.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Serra G, Giacomello S, Terziotti L, Romano L, Pasetto I, Kourtesiss D. 262. Superior hypogastric plexus block (SHPB) for pelvic pain secondary to cancer: Anterior approach with computed tomographic (CT) guidance. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. 2005;30:91.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
de Leon-Casasola OA, Kent E, Lema MJ. Neurolytic superior hypogastric plexus block for chronic pelvic pain associated with cancer. Pain 1993;54:145-51.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Plancarte R, de Leon-Casasola OA, El-Helaly M, Allende S, Lema MJ. Neurolytic superior hypogastric plexus block for chronic pelvic pain associated with cancer. Reg Anesth 1997;22:562-8.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Ho KY, Nagi PA, Gray L, Huh BK. An alternative approach to ganglion impar neurolysis under computed tomography guidance for recurrent vulva cancer. Anesthesiology 2006;105:861-2.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Ahmed DG, Mohamed MF, Mohamed SA. Superior hypogastric plexus combined with ganglion impar neurolytic blocks for pelvic and/or perineal cancer pain relief. Pain Physician 2015;18:E49-56.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Restrepo-Garces CE, Saldarriaga NE, Jaramillo S, Gomez CM, Vargas JF, Ramirez LJ. Ganglion impar phenol injection in a pediatric patient with refractory cancer pain. Pain Med 2014;15:334-6.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Tinnirello A, Todeschini M, Ronconi F, Barbieri S, Sbalzer N, Andreoletti S. Ganglion impar radiofrequency ablation for intractable cancer pain: A case report. Hos Pal Med Int Jnl 2018;2:21-3.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Kim YJ, Kim KT, Song CW. Neurolytic blockade of the ganglion impar for relief of cancer-related perianal pain: A case report. Korean J Anesthesiol 1997;33:750-2.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Wong FC, Lee TW, Yuen KK, Lo SH, Sze WK, Tung SY. Intercostal nerve blockade for cancer pain: Effectiveness and selection of patients. Hong Kong Med J 2007;13:266-70.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Matchett G. Intercostal nerve block and neurolysis for intractable cancer pain. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother 2016;30:114-7.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Gulati A, Shah R, Puttanniah V, Hung JC, Malhotra V. A retrospective review and treatment paradigm of interventional therapies for patients suffering from intractable thoracic chest wall pain in the oncologic population. Pain Med 2015;16:802-10.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Ahmed A, Bhatnagar S, Khurana D, Joshi S, Thulkar S. Ultrasound-guided radiofrequency treatment of intercostal nerves for the prevention of incidental pain arising due to rib metastasis. Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2017;34:115-24.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Nader A, Kendall MC. Selective infraclavicular brachial plexus phenol injection for the relief of cancer pain. Anesthesiology 2015;122:1153.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Ronald K, Zenaida A, Werner P. Phenol brachial plexus block for upper extremity cancer pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med 1998;13:58-61.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Loh TH, Patel S, Mirchandani A, Eckmann M. Brachial plexus chemical neurolysis with ethanol for cancer pain. Case Rep Med 2018;2018:1-3.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Buchanan D, Brown E, Millar F, Mosgrove F, Bhat R, Levack P. Outpatient continuous interscalene brachial plexus block in cancer-related pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 2009;38:629-34.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Vranken JH, van der Vegt MH, Zuurmond WW, Pijl AJ, Dzoljic M. Continuous brachial plexus block at the cervical level using a posterior approach in the management of neuropathic cancer pain. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2001;26:572-5.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Candido KD, Philip CN, Ghaly RF, Knezevic NN. Transforaminal 5% phenol neurolysis for the treatment of intractable cancer pain. Anesth Analg 2010;110:216-9.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Korevaar WC. Transcatheter thoracic epidural neurolysis using ethyl alcohol. Anesthesiology 1988;69:989-93.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Candido K, Stevens RA. Intrathecal neurolytic blocks for the relief of cancer pain. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2003;17:407-28.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Watanabe A, Yamakage M. Intrathecal neurolytic block in a patient with refractory cancer pain. J Anesth 2011;25:603-5.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Lynch J, Zech D, Grond S. The role of intrathecal neurolysis in the treatment of cancer-related perianal and perineal pain. Pall Med 1992;6:140-5.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Stovner J, Endresen R. Intrathecal phenol for cancer pain. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1972;16:17-21.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Wilkinson HA, Mark VH, White JC. Further experiences with intrathecal phenol for the relief of paIN. J Chronic Dis 1964;17:1055-9.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Hay RC. Subarachnoid alcohol block in the control of intractable pain: Report of results in 252 patients. Anesth Analg 1962;41:12-6.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Gerbershagen HU. Neurolysis. Subarachnoid neurolytic blockade. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg 1981;32:45-57.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Smith TJ, Staats PS, Deer T, Stearns LJ, Rauck RL, Boortz-Marx RL, 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;20:4040-9.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Smith TJ, Coyne PJ, Staats PS, Deer T, Stearns LJ, Rauck RL, 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;16:825-33.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Dahm P, Lundborg C, Janson M, Olegård C, Nitescu P. 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 2000;25:480-7.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Ballantyne JC, Carwood CM. Comparative efficacy of epidural, subarachnoid, and intracerebroventricular opioids in patients with pain due to cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;1:CD005178.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Eisenach JC, De Kock M, Klimscha W. Alpha (2)-adrenergic agonists for regional anesthesia. A clinical review of clonidine (1984-1995). Anesthesiology 1996;85:655-74.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
van Dongen RT, Crul BJ, van Egmond J. Intrathecal coadministration of bupivacaine diminishes morphine dose progression during long-term intrathecal infusion in cancer patients. Clin J Pain 1999;15:166-72.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Staats PS, Yearwood T, Charapata SG, Presley RW, Wallace MS, Byas-Smith M, et al. Intrathecal ziconotide in the treatment of refractory pain in patients with cancer or AIDS: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004;291:63-70.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
British Pain Society. Intrathecal Drug Delivery for the Management of Pain and Spasticity in Adults; Recommendations for Best Clinical Practice. British Pain Society; 2008.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Health Quality Ontario. Vertebral augmentation involving vertebroplasty or Kyphoplasty for cancer-related vertebral compression fractures: A systematic review. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser 2016;16:1-202.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Barragán-Campos HM, Vallée JN, Lo D, Cormier E, Jean B, Rose M, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty for spinal metastases: Complications. Radiology 2006;238:354-62.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Kortman K, Ortiz O, Miller T, Brook A, Tutton S, Mathis J, et al. Multicenter study to assess the efficacy and safety of sacroplasty in patients with osteoporotic sacral insufficiency fractures or pathologic sacral lesions. J Neurointerv Surg 2013;5:461-6.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Weill A, Kobaiter H, Chiras J. Acetabulum malignancies: Technique and impact on pain of percutaneous injection of acrylic surgical cement. Eur Radiol 1998;8:123-9.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Kelekis A, Lovblad KO, Mehdizade A, Somon T, Yilmaz H, Wetzel SG, et al. Pelvic osteoplasty in osteolytic metastases: Technical approach under fluoroscopic guidance and early clinical results. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005;16:81-8.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Marcy PY, Palussière J, Descamps B, Magné N, Bondiau PY, Ciais C, et al. Percutaneous cementoplasty for pelvic bone metastasis. Support Care Cancer 2000;8:500-3.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Whitlow CT, Mussat-Whitlow BJ, Mattern CW, Baker MD, Morris PP. Sacroplasty versus vertebroplasty: Comparable clinical outcomes for the treatment of fracture-related pain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1266-70.  Back to cited text no. 65
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Appendix
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed93    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded42    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal