PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 26, 2002Journal of Clinical Oncology725 citations

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

View Full Paper
TSThomas J. SmithPSPeter S. StaatsTDTimothy R. Deer

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

PURPOSE: Implantable intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDSs) have been used to manage refractory cancer pain, but there are no randomized clinical trial (RCT) data comparing them with comprehensive medical management (CMM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We enrolled 202 patients on an RCT of CMM versus IDDS plus CMM. Entry criteria included unrelieved pain (visual analog scale VAS pain scores >/= 5 on a 0 to 10 scale). Clinical success was defined as >/= 20% reduction in VAS scores, or equal scores with >/= 20% reduction in toxicity. The main outcome measure was pain control combined with change of toxicity, as measured by the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, 4 weeks after randomization. RESULTS: Sixty of 71 IDDS patients (84.5%) achieved clinical success compared with 51 of 72 CMM patients (70.8%, P =.05). IDDS patients more often achieved >/= 20% reduction in both pain VAS and toxicity (57.7% 41 of 71 v 37.5% 27 of 72, P =.02). The mean CMM VAS score fell from 7.81 to 4.76 (39% reduction); for the IDDS group, the scores fell from 7.57 to 3.67 (52% reduction, P =.055). The mean CMM toxicity scores fell from 6.36 to 5.27 (17% reduction); for the IDDS group, the toxicity scores fell from 7.22 to 3.59 (50% reduction, P =.004). The IDDS group had significant reductions in fatigue and depressed level of consciousness (P <.05). IDDS patients had improved survival, with 53.9% alive at 6 months compared with 37.2% of the CMM group (P =.06). CONCLUSION: IDDSs improved clinical success in pain control, reduced pain, significantly relieved common drug toxicities, and improved survival in patients with refractory cancer pain.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Smith et al. (2002) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a5c1f6c44a684c207aa2654https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2002.02.118
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Extent and determinants of error in doctors' prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study Commentary: Why do doctors overestimate? Commentary: Prognoses should be based on proved indices not intuition2000 · 1,428 citations
  2. 2Effect of low molecular weight heparin (Certoparin) versus unfractionated heparin on cancer survival following breast and pelvic cancer surgery: A prospective randomized double-blind trial.2000 · 121 citations
  3. 3Will to live in the terminally ill1999 · 293 citations
  4. 4Systematic review of outpatient services for chronic pain control.1997 · 126 citations
  5. 5Effects of Epoetin Alfa on Hematologic Parameters and Quality of Life in Cancer Patients Receiving Nonplatinum Chemotherapy: Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial2001 · 979 citations