Intrathecal cervical analgesia for cancer pain: a 12-year follow-up study in a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal analgesia plays a key role for patients suffering refractory cancer pain. Nevertheless, intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS), requiring a cervical catheter tip implantation, have been poorly described in medical literature. AIMS: A monocentric retrospective follow-up study was designed to evaluate results of cervical IDDS for cancer pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2010 to December 2022, all intrathecal-treated patients were prescribed a combined intrathecal analgesics regimen through a catheter placed in the cervical vertebral canal. Post-implant assessment of pain was determined using a numeric rating scale (NRS). Patients were followed via day-hospital visits and telephone calls at least monthly. Pain scores were compared using the Wilcoxon's signed rank test. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were included in this study; all received intrathecal treatments. Implanted patients suffered from severe pain (mean presurgical maximum numerical rating score 8.02±0.24 despite a mean 562.56±127.72 mg of oral morphine equivalent daily dose). Mean survival time after intrathecal treatment start was 208.48±67 days. Intrathecal drug delivery systems provided pain relief compared with initial pain score with a significant statistical difference after 1 week, 1 month, 2 and 3 months (p<0.01). A 50% reduction in initial pain level was achieved in 93% of cases during the first week of intrathecal implant. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that long-term intrathecal treatment using a multidrug regimen for cancer-related pain through cervical intrathecal catheters was suitable and safe in our study population. We demonstrated a clinically and statistically significant pain reduction in patients using mainly a percutaneous lumbar approach.

Intracerebroventricular Pain Treatment with Analgesic Mixtures including Ziconotide for Intractable Pain.

Intracerebroventricular (ICV) administration of opioids for control of intractable cancer pain has been used since 1982. We present here our experience of intracerebroventricular administration of pain treatments including ziconotide associated with morphine and ropivacaine for patients resistant to a conventional approach, with nociceptive, neuropathic, or mixed pain. These clinical cases were conducted with patients suffering from refractory pain, more than 6/10 on a numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) while on high-dose medical treatment and/or intolerance with significant side effects from oral medication. The baseline study visit included a physical examination and an assessment of pain intensity on a NPRS. Under general anesthesia, a neuronavigation device was used to place the catheter on the floor of the third ventricle, supported by an endoscope. Then, drugs were injected in the cerebroventricular system, through a pump (external or subcutaneous). The primary objective was to measure pain evaluation with ICV treatment after a complete withdrawal of other medications.Four patients were enrolled: 3 with intractable cancer pain and one with central neuropathic pain. The median NPRS at baseline was 9.5 [8.5; 19]. The mean NPRS after one month was 3.5 [3; 4.5]. Ziconotide was initiated at 0.48 µg/d and up to a median of 1.2 µg/d [1.0; 1.56]. The median dose of morphine and ropivacaine used initially was respectively 0.36 mg/d [0.24; 0.66] up to 0.6 mg/d [0.45; 4.63] and 1.2 mg/d [0; 2.4] up to 2.23 mg/d [1.2; 3.35]. Minor side effects were initially observed but transiently. One psychiatric agitation required discontinuation of ziconotide infusion. For intractable pain, using ziconotide by intracerebroventricular infusion seems safe and efficient, specifically for chronic neoplastic pain of cervicocephalic, thoracic, or diffuse origin and also for pain arising from a central neuropathic mechanism.

Long-term results of carmustine wafer implantation for newly diagnosed glioblastomas: a controlled propensity-matched analysis of a French multicenter cohort.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for newly diagnosed glioblastoma is maximal safe surgical resection, followed by chemoradiation therapy. We assessed carmustine wafer implantation efficacy and safety when used in combination with standard care. METHODS: Included were adult patients with (n = 354, implantation group) and without (n = 433, standard group) carmustine wafer implantation during first surgical resection followed by chemoradiation standard protocol. Multivariate and case-matched analyses (controlled propensity-matched cohort, 262 pairs of patients) were conducted. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 12.0 months (95% CI: 10.7-12.6) in the implantation group and 10.0 months (9.0-10.0) in the standard group and the median overall survival was 20.4 months (19.0-22.7) and 18.0 months (17.0-19.0), respectively. Carmustine wafer implantation was independently associated with longer progression-free survival in patients with subtotal/total surgical resection in the whole series (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI: 0.63-0.92], P = .005) and after propensity matching (HR, 0.74 [95% CI: 0.60-0.92], P = .008), whereas no significant difference was found for overall survival (HR, 0.95 [0.80-1.13], P = .574; HR, 1.06 [0.87-1.29], P = .561, respectively). Surgical resection at progression whether alone or combined with carmustine wafer implantation was independently associated with longer overall survival in the whole series (HR, 0.58 [0.44-0.76], P < .0001; HR, 0.54 [0.41-0.70], P < .0001, respectively) and after propensity matching (HR, 0.56 [95% CI: 0.40-0.78], P < .0001; HR, 0.46 [95% CI: 0.33-0.64], P < .0001, respectively). The higher postoperative infection rate in the implantation group did not affect survival. CONCLUSIONS: Carmustine wafer implantation during surgical resection followed by the standard chemoradiation protocol for newly diagnosed glioblastoma in adults resulted in a significant progression-free survival benefit.