Next Article in Journal
RNF213-Associated Vascular Disease: A Concept Unifying Various Vasculopathies
Next Article in Special Issue
The Palliative Care in the Metastatic Spinal Tumors. A Systematic Review on the Radiotherapy and Surgical Perspective
Previous Article in Journal
Replication Control of Human Telomere G-Quadruplex DNA by G-Quadruplex Ligands Dependent on Solution Environment
Previous Article in Special Issue
Primary Intraosseous Osteolytic Meningioma with Aggressive Clinical Behaviour: Clinico-Pathologic Correlation and Proposed New Clinical Classification
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Life
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/life12040554
life-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Spinal Cord Stimulation to Treat Unresponsive Cancer Pain: A Possible Solution in Palliative Oncological Therapy

by
Federica Paolini
1,*,
Gianluca Ferini
2,
Lapo Bonosi
1,
Roberta Costanzo
1,
Lara Brunasso
1,
Umberto Emanuele Benigno
1,
Massimiliano Porzio
1,
Rosa Maria Gerardi
1,
Giuseppe Roberto Giammalva
1,
Giuseppe Emmanuele Umana
3,
Francesca Graziano
4,
Gianluca Scalia
4,
Carmelo Lucio Sturiale
5,
Rina Di Bonaventura
5,
Domenico Gerardo Iacopino
1 and
Rosario Maugeri
1
1
Neurosurgical Clinic, AOUP “Paolo Giaccone”, Post Graduate Residency Program in Neurologic Surgery, Department of Biomedicine Neurosciences and Advanced Diagnostics, School of Medicine, University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy
2
Department of Radiation Oncology, REM Radioterapia srl, 95125 Catania, Italy
3
Department of Neurosurgery, Cannizzaro Hospital, Trauma Center, Gamma Knife Center, 95100 Catania, Italy
4
Unit of Neurosurgery, Garibaldi Hospital, 95100 Catania, Italy
5
Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (I.R.C.C.S.), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00100 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Life 2022, 12(4), 554; https://doi.org/10.3390/life12040554
Submission received: 1 March 2022 / Revised: 3 April 2022 / Accepted: 4 April 2022 / Published: 7 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Early Career Stars in Physiology and Pathology)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: Treatment of cancer-related pain is still challenging, and it can be managed by both medical and interventional therapies. Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is a minimally invasive technique, and its use is rapidly increasing in the treatment of chronic pain. (2) Materials and Methods: Our study aims to perform a review of the pertinent literature about current evidences in cancer pain treatment by Spinal Cord Stimulation. Moreover, we created a database based on case reports or case series (18 studies) in the literature. We analyzed a clinical group of oncological patients affected by intractable pain undergoing SCS implantation, focusing on outcome. (3) Results: The analysis of the 18 included studies in our series has shown a reduction in painful symptoms in 48 out of 56 treated patients (87.51%); also 53 out of 56 patients (96.64%) have shown an improvement in their Quality of Life (QoL). (4) Conclusions: Spinal Cord Stimulation can be considered an efficient method in the treatment of cancer-related pain. However, literature regarding SCS for the treatment of cancer-related pain is largely represented by case reports and small case series, with no effective population studies or Randomized Controlled Trials demonstrating the efficacy and the level of evidence. Further prospective studies are needed.

1. Introduction

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for the treatment of chronic pain is rapidly evolving together with technological improvement and pathophysiological insights, and recent studies are proving the clinical effectiveness of SCS in other conditions as the management of cancer-associated pain.
Over half of all cancer patients will experience severe, unmanageable pain during their disease, and its treatment is a primary challenge because it is related to poor physical outcome. A meta-analysis of several studies concluded that 38.0% of all cancer patients reported moderate to severe pain (Numerical Rating Scale score ≥5) [1].
Most of these patients suffer from moderate to severe pain; a significant percentage of those with advanced-stage cancer show an increased emotional distress, impairment of their quality of life (QoL), and disability [2].
Cancer-associated pain can be related to the primary tumor, typically somatic pain in nature, but it can derive also from metastases, treatments, and diagnostic procedures. Moreover, even after cancer survival, between 20% and 50% of patients continue to experience pain and functional limitations in the years following treatment [3].
This study aims to review the current literature about recent evidence in Spinal Cord Stimulation as cancer pain treatment.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Selection

The authors performed a systematic review of the effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Oncologic pain treatment, following the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis) (Figure 1).
An accurate search to identify pertinent articles was performed using PubMed database. The references sections of included articles were analyzed, too.
Mesh terms used were:
  • “Spinal cord stimulation AND oncology”, 404 articles.
  • “Spinal cord stimulation AND cancer pain”, 252 articles.
  • “Spinal cord stimulation AND tumor”, 673 articles.
In our review we included case reports, case series, cohort prospective and retrospective studies, and clinical trials which have been published between 2000 and 2021; only English articles were used. To be included, studies had to analyze a single or group of patients, focusing on Spinal Cord Stimulation in treatment of cancer-related chronic pain and its clinical relevance. We aim to investigate and highlight the current state of the art in SCS as oncological pain treatment, focusing on indications and outcome.

2.2. Data Extraction

We created a database based on the previously selected case reports or case series (Table 1). We analyzed a clinical group of oncological patients affected by intractable pain undergoing SCS implantation: we analyzed patients’ gender and age, study group size, study design, cancer diagnosis, pain etiology, stimulation mode, pre-operative and post-operative Visual Analogic Scale (VAS) for pain evaluation, outcome in terms of pain reduction, improvement in QoL, and reduction in drug therapy after SCS implant.
Moreover, we conducted statistical analyses to evaluate differences between pre-operative and post-operative pain.

3. Results

3.1. Systematic Review

A total of 1387 studies were identified through PubMed database and references section screening (978 articles after duplicates removal).
First, articles were selected by the presence in their title of the words “spinal cord stimulation” associated with “oncology”, “cancer”, or forms of cancer (e.g., lung cancer), “tumor”, “oncological pain”, and “cancer pain”. After screening by title, we rejected 392 articles.
In total, 586 abstracts were screened according to the selection criteria. Thus, we identified 75 studies.
Next, 60 studies were rejected due to the lack of reported data about patient outcome. Finally, we included in this systematic review 18 articles, summarized in Table 1.

3.2. Outcome Database

All the selected records were used to structure the database to evaluate SCS outcomes in Table 2.
Patients included totalled 56, 30 males and 26 females. The mean age was 54.21 ± 8.9 years old. Cancer diagnosis and location was extremely heterogenous in the different studies.
A total of 8.92% (5/56) patient suffered from cancer-related pain, while 91.07% (51/56) suffered from treatment-related pain (surgical, chemo, or radiotherapy).
The analysis of studies included in our series has shown a reduction in painful symptoms (≥50% reduction from pre- to post-operative VAS) in 85.71% (48/56) of treated patients, and 94.64% (53/56) showed an improvement in their QoL.
SCS was associated with a reduction in drugs intake in 35.71% of patients (20/56), and to a complete stop in 46.42% of patients (26/56).
Analyzing the mean value of pre-operative (7.63/10) and post-operative VAS (2.18/10), a significant difference in pain relief between pre- and post-SCS (p < 0.001) was found.

4. Discussion

4.1. Treatment of Cancer Pain

Nowadays, pain is considered “the fifth vital sign”, and it must be treated as an illness itself, using a multimodal approach. [22,23] Chronic pain management, in its several forms, is still challenging. As regards musculoskeletal chronic pain, its treatment is considered by World Health Organization as a priority, due to its prevalence, health, and economic costs [24].
Opioids are the most used drugs in the treatment of chronic pain, even if their benefits are proven only in short term therapies. Less robust benefits are proved as regard patient functional outcomes. Long term opioids use is related to low Quality of Life (QoL) and an increase in severe side effects (even overdose), and its safety has not been proven to date [25].
Cancer-related pain represents an important public health problem in terms of number of patients affected and health care costs [8]. Pain is strongly related to depression, decreased quality of life and ability to perform activities of daily living, and lower adherence to treatments [26].
Management of cancer pain must consider the close relationship between pain and QoL [27]. Pain has been proven to be a major independent predictor of survival in cancer patients [27,28,29]. Over 50% of patients complain of moderate to severe pain despite medical treatment [30]. Reasons of mismanagement of cancer pain can be related to physicians (undertreatment due to fear of side effects, no patient education, underestimation of pain, poor communication between patients and doctors, or no application of pain control guidelines) and to patients (scarce adherence to treatment, fear of side effects, lack of communication between patients and doctors, or pain considered as “normal”) [23,27,31,32].
The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Association for Palliative Care summarized reviews for medical management of cancer pain; moreover, the World Health Organization (WHO) provided the three-step “Ladder” for the treatment of cancer pain [33,34,35].
Due to the recent access to data on the pathophysiological mechanisms and response to pain control, the idea to structure the management of cancer-associated pain through both medical and interventional therapies has gained attention.
Treatment of cancer pain is not free from medico-legal risks. According to recent publications, the undertreatment of pain is considered a medical error [23,36]. Not following updated guidelines, prescribing inappropriate doses of opioids, and failure to use all the means to achieve pain control represent situations that carry the risk of litigation [23,36,37].
Several publications describe a significant variance in the interventional pain management strategies for cancer pain, such as neurolytic blocks, intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS), vertebral augmentation, neuromodulation (including spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) for neuropathic pain, and radiotherapy; to date, neither strong evidence nor guidelines exist to support them [38,39]. Nonetheless, interventional treatments have proven effective in providing pain relief, reducing the burden of symptoms, minimizing opioid intake and its side effects, and having a low complication rate [3,40]. However, both invasive and non-invasive treatments carry the risk of complications [23].
Spinal Cord Stimulation in unresponsive cancer pain is an increasingly used technique, succeeding in obtaining good outcomes in terms of pain reduction and improvement in quality of life.

4.2. Pathophysiology of Oncologic Pain

The symptoms experienced by oncological patients are a consequence of cellular, tissue, and systemic changes that occur during proliferation, invasion, and metastasis, causing the nociceptive component of pain. The responding immune system also has a primary role in cancer pain [41]. These changes affect the physiological functioning of the nervous system responsible for the control and processing of the various painful stimuli both at the spinal and supraspinal levels, leading to a neuropathic component of pain [1].
Causes of cancer pain are multifactorial and complex, and are likely to vary with an array of tumor-related and host-related factors and processes. Pathophysiological mechanisms underlying cancer pain are not completely clear, but it certainly includes both a nociceptive and a neuropathic component [3].
Some studies have highlighted the role of tumor microenvironmental abnormalities, which in turn contribute to cancer pain [41,42,43,44]. Cancer cells produce nerve damage, which in turn determines a malfunctioning of the system responsible for differentiating pain information from non-painful stimuli, closely related to an alteration of the balance between excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters [45,46,47].
According to recent studies, in animal models, the generation of hyperalgesia and allodynia seems to be related to an imbalance between glutamatergic, GABAergic, and purinergic neurotransmitters and the expression of a variety of humoral factors [48,49,50].
Glial cells seem to play a key role in the maintenance of pain in cancer patients by releasing and responding to pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, which in turn create a microenvironment favorable to the maintenance of a pro-inflammatory structure and an alteration in the perception of painful sensation [51].
Mechanisms of pain control by Spinal Cord Stimulation are not completely clear. Recent studies have proven its effectiveness in modulating neurotransmitter release in the spinal cord, and a direct suppression of spinal cells hyperactivity and neuron’s conductive properties. Moreover, electrical stimulus produced by SCS is targeting both neurons and glial cells, creating depolarization of cells membrane [5,6].

4.3. Spinal Cord Stimulation in Oncologic Pain

Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) assumes that, by delivering an electric current at a certain frequency, intensity, and latency, the physiological functioning of pathologically hypo/hyperactivated circuits can be re-established through the neuromodulator action exerted at the level of the spinal nerve fiber bundles. Variations in parameters such as frequency, latency, and intensity are linked to different neural targets and effects [52].
Most electrophysiological studies have focused on the effect of spinal stimulation on neuronal components, especially axonal ones. Electrical stimulation can even target glial cells producing depolarization and glutamate release, which depends on amplitude and frequency. In this context, Spinal Cord Stimulation could also be exploited in the treatment of cancer pain, although further studies in this regard are essential. However, the in-depth knowledge of the mechanisms of genesis of cancer pain and the modality of action of stimulation highlights the potential of this therapeutic option in cancer patients [52,53,54].
Moreover, stimulation of the spinal cord also affects cortical and subcortical structures. Some studies demonstrated that electrical stimulation influences the activity of neurons in the thalamus and somatosensory cortices, indicating that SCS regulates the pain threshold at the thalamus and parietal association level [55,56]. Some authors have suggested that spinal cord stimulation could selectively act on neuropathic but not nociceptive pain as a result of processing at the cerebral level, diencephalon, or brainstem, rather than the spinal cord [57]. In a recent study, the use of spectroscopy MRI in a cohort of 20 FBSS patients revealed an increase in GABA concentration and a decrease of glucose levels in the ipsilateral Thalamus during spinal cord stimulation [58]. Recent preclinical studies have documented an increase in serotonin and noradrenaline levels in the median pontine nuclei (dorsal raphe nucleus) and the Locus Coeruleus, respectively, during spinal stimulation, underlining the fact that the supraspinal regulation of pain sensitivity can be controlled at various levels and by various networks, modified by the stimulation itself [59].
Several publications in the last few decades demonstrate the benefit of SCS in managing chronic pain (especially in previously failed back surgery syndrome—FBSS), but only recently large Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews were conducted with persistently scarce meta-analysis assessing its use [60,61,62,63].
Considering the more recent field of interest in alternative interventional free-of-side-effects treatment for cancer-related pain, no effective population studies or RCTs demonstrating the efficacy and the level of evidence have been conducted. Between 10% and 50% of patients with cancer-related pain do not achieve acceptable levels of pain relief with opiates alone or in combination with conventional adjuvant analgesics [1,8,30].
The literature regarding SCS for the treatment of cancer-related pain is largely represented by case reports and small case series [3,64,65]. In a large percentage of patients, pain is not related to the tumor itself, but to its treatment (see Table 1). Moreover, many patients with primary spinal tumors or metastasis may require laminectomy, decompression, and fusion, developing pain worse than or equal to their pain prior to spine surgery; many of these patients may require treatment for FBSS. Therefore, it is suggested that SCS should be considered early in the treatment algorithm for these patients with both post-surgical lumbar and cervical radicular pain [3].
The high evidence level for use of SCS in FBSS has helped to establish the potential role of SCS in treating patients with cancer-related pain. However, the effectiveness and relative safety of SCS for cancer pain has not been adequately established [66].

4.4. Current Clinical Applications

SCS can be commonly used in several forms of cancer-related pain. One of the first retrospective studies was conducted by Shimoji et al. in 1993, where a series of 52 consecutive oncological patients with intractable pain was analyzed, and a SCS implant resulted in a reduction in pain of at least 50% [67].
From 2002 to 2021, 11 case reports and 7 case series are reported in the literature.
These studies show how Spinal Cord Stimulation can relieve various types of cancer-related pain [4,8,12,18], even due to osseous lesions, probably the type most painful and unresponsive to conventional therapy, due to pathological fracture or cortical invasion and tissue inflammation [16,62].
Nevertheless, pain is not only related to cancer itself, but it can arise after chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation therapy [8,10,13,19,20,21].
Treatment-related chronic pain syndromes can have different causes:
  • Chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain [5,17].
  • Raynaud’s syndrome induced by chemotherapy [6].
  • Neuropathic pain after surgery [9,14].
  • Phantom limb pain after amputation from various types of cancer [11].
  • Neuropathic pain after radiation therapy [15].
  • Transverses myelitis after radiation [7,62].
The analysis of studies included in our series (see Table 1 and Table 2) has shown a reduction in painful symptoms, defined as ≥50% reduction from pre- to post-operative VAS, in 85.71% (48/56) of treated patients, with a strong impact on VAS reduction (from 7.63/10 to 2.18/10, p < 0.001). A total of 94.64% (53/56) showed a significant improvement in their QoL, and 82.14% (46/56) of patients experienced a reduction in or dismission of analgesic drugs intake.
Most patients analyzed in our review were affected by treatment-related pain (51/56). Even in this subpopulation of cancer patients, results are promising in terms of pain reduction, improvement in quality of life, and reduction in intake of opioid medications [10,13]. These clinical benefits are associated with good psychological outcomes in terms of improvement in the ability to perform daily activities, less dependency on others, and great improvement in sleep pattern [17].
In the literature, no clear relationship between responders and no responders to SCS is found [3,68]. Nonetheless, multiple predictive factors are under study [7].
SCS seems to give better results in patients with a high percentage of neuropathic components of pain, and in peripheric form against central pain [7,9,11]. Somatosensory Evoked Potentials (SSEPs) have been studied as predictors in SCS outcome [7,69]. Psychiatric disorders such as depression and anxiety seem to be linked to poor outcome after implant [21]. This is important in considering the highest prevalence of depression in cancer patients, but also the effect of SCS in improving sleep and depressive symptoms together with pain [7,14,16]. Better results are related to a shorter duration of pain [21].
Although our results arise from case reports or case series, Spinal Cord Stimulation plays a decisive role in reducing the pain arising from cancer and its surrounding pathologies.
There is an important need for a higher level of evidence to state the efficacy of SCS in cancer pain, particularly when considering the shortcomings of the current published literature in this area (including retrospective study designs, small patient numbers, and no inclusion of neurostimulation technological advancements). However, based on the experience with SCS in other forms of pain, and on small series and case reports in cancer pain, SCS can be a useful and effective therapy in many of the challenging cancer-related neuropathic pain syndromes such as post-radiation neuropathic pain, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathies, and post-surgical pain syndromes [62].

4.5. Complications and Limitations

The most common complication in SCS is related to lead migration, especially in quadripolar leads, followed by infections that, sooner or later, could lead to re-interventions. CSF leak and device failure are less common complications [70]. In our series, a low rate of complication is shown (two cases of lead migration, one case of allergic rejection of battery, and one case of infection) [11,12,21].
In patients affected by cancer-related pain, their immunosuppressed condition could increase the risk of device infection and can severely compromise wound healing [62]. Nonetheless, in our series, the percentage of complications is similar to FBSS patients. As a matter of fact, a study by Sica et al. proved the feasibility of an SCS implant even in patients affected by lymphoproliferative diseases [71].
Thus, SCS represents a simple and effective procedure; the low success rate is related to the lack of straight and rigid inclusion criteria in patients’ selection, e.g., exclusion of patients with psychological disorders.
Cost/effective ratio could be considered a limitation of this procedure. From our review, several patients experience pain not only related to cancer itself, but treatment-related, too. As we stated, SCS is not free from complications, but it is a completely reversible technique that can free cancer patients from the burden of opioid side effects. Moreover, opioids often fail with neuropathic pain, and long-term opioid therapy is linked to low QoL and life expectancy. In most cases, the use of so-called “invasive” interventional pain procedures can be less invasive than an aggressive medical therapy [10,13,20,72,73]. Therefore, if we consider the longest life expectancy of patients affected by cancer, the costs and side effects of pain drugs (almost all opioids) should be taken into account.
The major critical limitation is the lack of RCTs that cannot prove the efficacy of SCS in the management of cancer-related pain [74].

5. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

The latest evidence evaluation about SCS in cancer-related pain suggested a level of evidence II-3-C in patients with refractory cancer pain, and level III-C on a case-by-case basis for pain related to cancer treatment (such as chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy) [3]. Literature is mostly based on case reports or case series, and there is an important need for a higher level of evidence. Nevertheless, from our review and statistical analysis on patient outcome, we can state that SCS is a minimally invasive and effective method to treat several forms of pain. In the future, we look forward to realize controlled and randomized studies to increase the evidence based levels of this high efficiency technique, and in doing so allowing an increased use of it in daily practice.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.P., G.F., G.R.G. and L.B. (Lapo Bonosi); methodology, F.P., R.C., L.B. (Lara Brunasso), U.E.B., M.P., R.M.G. and G.E.U.; software, F.G.; validation, G.E.U., G.S., C.L.S. and R.D.B.; formal analysis, C.L.S. and G.E.U.; investigation, F.P., L.B. (Lapo Bonosi), F.G. and G.S.; resources, R.C., U.E.B. and G.E.U.; data curation, D.G.I. and R.M.; writing—original draft preparation, F.P., G.F., G.E.U. and G.S.; writing—review and editing, G.S., F.G., G.E.U., D.G.I. and R.M.; visualization, C.L.S. and R.D.B.; supervision, R.M.; project administration, F.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tapia Pérez, J.H. Spinal cord stimulation: Beyond pain management. Neurologia 2019, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Van den Beuken-van Everdingen, M.H.; Hochstenbach, L.M.J.; Joosten, E.A.J.; Tjan-Heijnen, V.C.G.; Janssen, D.J.A. Update on prevalence of pain in patients with cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2016, 51, 1070–1090.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Aman, M.M.; Mahmoud, A.; Deer, T.; Sayed, D.; Hagedorn, J.M.; Brogan, S.E.; Singh, V.; Gulati, A.; Strand, N.; Weisbein, J.; et al. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) best practices and guidelines for the interventional management of cancer-associated pain. J. Pain Res. 2021, 14, 2139–2164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Eisenberg, E.; Brecker, C. Lumbar spinal cord stimulation for cervical-originated central pain: A case report. Pain 2002, 100, 299–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cata, J.P.; Cordella, J.V.; Burton, A.W.; Hassenbusch, S.J.; Weng, H.-R.; Dougherty, P.M. Spinal cord stimulation relieves chemotherapy-induced pain: A clinical case report. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2004, 27, 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ting, J.C.; Fukshansky, M.; Burton, A.W. Treatment of refractory ischemic pain from chemotherapy-induced Raynaud’s syndrome with spinal cord stimulation. Pain Pract. 2007, 7, 143–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hamid, B.; Haider, N. Spinal cord stimulator relieves neuropathic pain in a patient with radiation-induced transverse myelitis. Pain Pract. 2007, 7, 345–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yakovlev, A.E.; Ellias, Y. Spinal cord stimulation as a treatment option for intractable neuropathic cancer pain. Clin. Med. Res. 2008, 6, 103–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Lee, M.G.; Choi, S.S.; Kong, M.H.; Lee, I.O.; Oh, H.R. Thoracic spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain after spinal meningioma removal: A case report. Clin. J. Pain 2009, 25, 167–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yakovlev, A.E.; Resch, B.E.; Karasev, S.A. Treatment of cancer-related chest wall pain using spinal cord stimulation. Am. J. Hosp. Palliat. Care 2010, 27, 552–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Viswanathan, A.; Phan, P.C.; Burton, A.W. Use of spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of phantom limb pain: Case series and review of the literature. Pain Pract. 2010, 10, 479–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Nouri, K.H.; Brish, E.L. Spinal cord stimulation for testicular pain. Pain Med. 2011, 12, 1435–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Yakovlev, A.E.; Resch, B.E. Spinal cord stimulation for cancer-related low back pain. Am. J. Hosp. Palliat. Care 2012, 29, 93–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wininger, K.L.; Bester, M.L.; Deshpande, K.K. Spinal cord stimulation to treat postthoracotomy neuralgia: Non–small-cell lung cancer: A case report. Pain Manag. Nurs. 2012, 13, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Elahi, F.; Callahan, D.; Greenlee, J.; Dann, T.L. Pudendal entrapment neuropathy: A rare complication of pelvic radiation therapy. Pain Physician 2013, 16, E793–E797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Mirpuri, R.G.; Brammeier, J. Spinal cord stimulation for treatment of the pain associated with hereditary multiple osteochondromas. J. Pain Res. 2015, 8, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Abd-Elsayed, A.; Schiavoni, N.; Sachdeva, H. Efficacy of spinal cord stimulators in treating peripheral neuropathy: A case series. J. Clin. Anesth. 2016, 28, 74–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Hutson, N.; Hung, J.C.; Puttanniah, V.; Lis, E.; Laufer, I.; Gulati, A. Interventional pain management for sacroiliac tumors in the oncologic population: A case series and paradigm approach. Pain Med. 2017, 18, 959–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Maeda, A.; Watanabe, M.; Saigano, C.; Nakayama, S.; Yamaura, K. Spinal cord stimulation alleviates intractable pain due to malignant pleural mesothelioma: A case report. JA Clin. Rep. 2020, 6, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Quintero-Carreño, V.; Molina, B.M. Spinal cord stimulation in the management of neuropathic pain in cancer patients: Case report. Colomb. J. Anesthesiol. 2021, 49, e934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Chung, M.; Ray, H. Treatment of postmastectomy pain syndrome with spinal cord stimulation: A case series. Pain Med. Case Rep. 2021, 5, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Vittori, A.; Petrucci, E.; Cascella, M.; Innamorato, M.; Cuomo, A.; Giarratano, A.; Petrini, F.; Marinangeli, F. Pursuing the recovery of severe chronic musculoskeletal pain in Italy: Clinical and organizational perspectives from a SIAARTI survey. J. Pain Res. 2021, 14, 3401–3410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Starck, P.L.; Sherwood, G.D.; Adams-McNeill, J.; Thomas, E.J. Identifying and addressing medical errors in pain mismanagement. Jt. Comm. J. Qual. Improv. 2001, 27, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ashaye, T.; Hounsome, N.; Carnes, D.; Taylor, S.J.C.; Homer, K.; Eldridge, S.; Spencer, A.; Rahman, A.; Foell, J.; Underwood, M.; et al. Opioid prescribing for chronic musculoskeletal pain in UK primary care: Results from a cohort analysis of the COPERS trial. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e019491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Von Korff, M.R. Long-term use of opioids for complex chronic pain. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol. 2013, 27, 663–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Maugeri, R.; Giugno, A.; Giammalva, R.G.; Gulì, C.; Basile, L.; Graziano, F.; Iacopino, D.G. A thoracic vertebral localization of a metastasized cutaneous Merkel cell carcinoma: Case report and review of literature. Surg. Neurol. Int. 2017, 8, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Neufeld, N.J.; Elnahal, S.M.; Alvarez, R.H. Cancer pain: A review of epidemiology, clinical quality and value impact. Future Oncol. 2017, 13, 833–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Montazeri, A. Quality of life data as prognostic indicators of survival in cancer patients: An overview of the literature from 1982 to 2008. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2009, 7, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Smith, T.J.; Staats, P.S.; Deer, T.; Stearns, L.J.; Rauck, R.L.; Boortz-Marx, R.L.; Buchser, E.; Català, E.; Bryce, D.A.; Coyne, P.J.; 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rau, K.-M.; Chen, J.-S.; Wu, H.-B.; Lin, S.-F.; Huang, M.-L.; Tai, C.-J.; Hwang, W.-L.; Lu, Y.-C.; Wang, C.-C.; Hsieh, R.K. Cancer-related pain: A nationwide survey of patients’ treatment modification and satisfaction in Taiwan. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 47, 1060–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Müller-Schwefe, G.H. Patients’ and physicians’ perspectives on opioid therapy for chronic cancer and musculoskeletal pain in Germany, Italy, and Turkey: PAin RESearch (PARES) survey. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2014, 30, 339–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Forget, P.; Patullo, C.; Hill, D.; Ambekar, A.; Baldacchino, A.; Cata, J.; Chetty, S.; Cox, F.J.; de Boer, H.D.; Dinwoodie, K.; et al. System-level policies on appropriate opioid use, a multi-stakeholder consensus. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2022, 22, 329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. WHO. WHO Guidelines for the Pharmacological and Radiotherapeutic Management of Cancer Pain in Adults and Adolescents; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  34. Paice, J.A.; Portenoy, R.; Lacchetti, C.; Campbell, T.; Cheville, A.; Citron, M.; Constine, L.S.; Cooper, A.; Glare, P.; Keefe, F.; et al. Management of chronic pain in survivors of adult cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 3325–3345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Caraceni, A.; Hanks, G. European Palliative Care Research Collaborative (EPCRC); European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC). Use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of cancer pain: Evidence-based recommendations from the EAPC. Lancet Oncol. 2012, 13, e58–e68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rodziewicz, T.L.; Houseman, B. Medical Error Reduction and Prevention. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  37. Huang, H.; Yao, D.; Saba, R.; Brovman, E.Y.; Kang, D.; Greenberg, P.; Urman, R.D. A contemporary medicolegal claims analysis of injuries related to neuraxial anesthesia between 2007 and 2016. J. Clin. Anesth. 2019, 57, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Stearns, L.J.; Narang, S.; Albright, R.E.; Hammond, K.; Xia, Y.; Richter, H.B.; Paramanandam, G.K.; Haagenson, K.K.; Doth, A.H. Assessment of health care utilization and cost of targeted drug delivery and conventional medical management vs conventional medical management alone for patients with cancer-related pain. JAMA Netw. Open 2019, 2, e191549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Maugeri, R.; Graziano, F.; Basile, L.; Gulì, C.; Giugno, A.; Giammalva, G.R.; Visocchi, M.; Iacopino, D.G. Reconstruction of vertebral body after radiofrequency ablation and augmentation in dorsolumbar metastatic vertebral fracture: Analysis of clinical and radiological outcome in a clinical series of 18 patients. Trends Reconstr. Neurosurg. 2017, 124, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Maugeri, R.; Giammalva, G.R. Unusual case of dorsal vertebral metastases from a male breast cancer. Acta Med. Mediterr. 2017, 33, 1157–1161. [Google Scholar]
  41. Schmidt, B.L.; Hamamoto, D.T.; Simone, D.A.; Wilcox, G.L. Mechanism of cancer pain. Mol. Interv. 2010, 10, 164–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Peters, C.; Lindsay, T.; Pomonis, J.; Luger, N.; Ghilardi, J.; Sevcik, M.; Mantyh, P. Endothelin and the tumorigenic component of bone cancer pain. Neuroscience 2004, 126, 1043–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Gould, H.J., 3rd; Gould, T.N. A possible role for nerve growth factor in the augmentation of sodium channels in models of chronic pain. Brain Res. 2000, 854, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mamet, J.; Baron, A. Proinflammatory mediators, stimulators of sensory neuron excitability via the expression of ac-id-sensing ion channels. J. Neurosci. 2002, 22, 10662–10670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Tsuda, M. Microglia-mediated regulation of neuropathic pain: Molecular and cellular mechanisms. Biol. Pharm. Bull. 2019, 42, 1959–1968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Kuner, R.; Flor, H. Structural plasticity and reorganisation in chronic pain. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2016, 18, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Peirs, C.; Seal, R.P. Neural circuits for pain: Recent advances and current views. Science 2016, 354, 578–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Inoue, K.; Tsuda, M. Microglia in neuropathic pain: Cellular and molecular mechanisms and therapeutic potential. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2018, 19, 138–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jin, S.-X.; Zhuang, Z.-Y.; Woolf, C.J.; Ji, R.-R. p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase is activated after a spinal nerve ligation in spinal cord microglia and dorsal root ganglion neurons and contributes to the generation of neuropathic pain. J. Neurosci. 2003, 23, 4017–4022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Coull, J.A.M.; Beggs, S.; Boudreau, D.; Boivin, D.; Tsuda, M.; Inoue, K.; Gravel, C.; Salter, M.W.; de Koninck, Y. BDNF from microglia causes the shift in neuronal anion gradient underlying neuropathic pain. Nature 2005, 438, 1017–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Fumagalli, G.; Monza, L.; Cavaletti, G.; Rigolio, R.; Meregalli, C. Neuroinflammatory process involved in different preclinical models of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Front. Immunol. 2021, 11, 626687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Vallejo, R.; Bradley, K. Spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain: Mode of action. Spine 2017, 42, S53–S60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lee, D.; Hershey, B.; Bradley, K.; Yearwood, T. Predicted effects of pulse width programming in spinal cord stimulation: A mathematical modeling study. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 2011, 49, 765–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Giugno, A.; Gulì, C. Spinal cord stimulation: An alternative concept of rehabilitation? Acta Neurochir. Suppl. 2017, 124, 15–18. [Google Scholar]
  55. Barchini, J.; Tchachaghian, S.; Shamaa, F.; Jabbur, S.; Meyerson, B.; Song, Z.; Linderoth, B.; Saadé, N. Spinal segmental and supraspinal mechanisms underlying the pain-relieving effects of spinal cord stimulation: An experimental study in a rat model of neuropathy. Neuroscience 2012, 215, 196–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kishima, H.; Saitoh, Y.; Oshino, S.; Hosomi, K.; Ali, M.; Maruo, T.; Hirata, M.; Goto, T.; Yanagisawa, T.; Sumitani, M.; et al. Modulation of neuronal activity after spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain; H215O PET study. NeuroImage 2010, 49, 2564–2569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Brill, J.E. Control of pain. Crit. Care Clin. 1992, 8, 203–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sivanesan, E.; Maher, D.P. Supraspinal mechanisms of spinal cord stimulation for modulation of pain: Five decades of research and prospects for the future. Anesthesiology 2019, 130, 651–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tazawa, T.; Kamiya, Y.; Kobayashi, A.; Saeki, K.; Takiguchi, M.; Nakahashi, Y.; Shinbori, H.; Funakoshi, K.; Goto, T. Spinal cord stimulation modulates supraspinal centers of the descending antinociceptive system in rats with unilateral spinal nerve injury. Mol. Pain 2015, 11, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Vallejo, R.; Gupta, A.; Cedeno, D.L.; Vallejo, A.; Smith, W.J.; Thomas, S.M.; Benyamin, R.; Kaye, A.D.; Manchikanti, L. Clinical effectiveness and mechanism of action of spinal cord stimulation for treating chronic low back and lower extremity pain: A systematic review. Curr. Pain Headache Rep. 2020, 24, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rosenberg, J.; Fabi, A.; Candido, K.; Knezevic, N.; Creamer, M.; Carayannopoulos, A.; Ghodsi, A.; Nelson, C.; Bennett, M. Spinal cord stimulation provides pain relief with improved psychosocial function: Results from EMP3OWER. Pain Med. 2016, 17, 2311–2325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Hagedorn, J.M.; Pittelkow, T.P.; Hunt, C.L.; D’Souza, R.S.; Lamer, T.J. Current perspectives on spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of cancer pain. J. Pain Res. 2020, 13, 3295–3305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Graziano, F.; Gerardi, R.M.; Bue, E.L.; Basile, L.; Brunasso, L.; Somma, T.; Maugeri, R.; Nicoletti, G.; Iacopino, D.G. Surgical back risk syndrome and spinal cord stimulation: Better safe than sorry. World Neurosurg. 2020, 133, e658–e665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yakovlev, A.E.; Resch, B.E. Treatment of multifocal pain with spinal cord stimulation. Neuromodul. Technol. Neural Interface 2012, 15, 210–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Skolasky, R.L.; Wegener, S.T. The impact of reduction of pain after lumbar spine surgery: The relationship between changes in pain and physical function and disability. Spine 2014, 39, 1426–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zejun, Z.; Lihua, P.; Ke, W.; Su, M.; Bennett, M.I. Spinal cord stimulation for cancer-related pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2015, 2015, CD009389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Shimoji, K.; Hokari, T. Management of intractable pain with percutaneous epidural spinal cord stimulation: Differences in pain-relieving effects among diseases and sites of pain. Anesth. Analg. 1993, 77, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sheldon, B.L.; DiMarzio, M.; Chung, S.H.; Tram, J.; Khazen, O.; Staudt, M.D.; Bondoc, M.; Pilitsis, J.G. Association of outcomes of spinal cord stimulation for chronic low back pain and psoas measurements based on size of iliopsoas muscles. Neuromodul. Technol. Neural Interface 2022, 25, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sindou, M.P.; Mertens, P.; Bendavid, U.; García-Larrea, L.; Mauguière, F. Predictive value of somatosensory evoked potentials for long-lasting pain relief after spinal cord stimulation: Practical use for patient selection. Neurosurgery 2003, 52, 1374–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Graziano, F.; Scalia, G.; Cammarata, G.; Bue, E.L.; Brunasso, L.; Maugeri, R.; Umana, G.E.; Gerardi, R.M.; Iacopino, D.G.; Nicoletti, G.F. Letter to the editor regarding “First report of extraspinal lead migration along a thoracic spinal nerve after spinal cord stimulation”. World Neurosurg. 2020, 145, 536–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sica, A.; Casale, B.; Sagnelli, C.; di Dato, M.T.; Buonavolontà, P.; Salzano, A.M.; Sagnelli, E.; Famiglietti, V.; Saracco, E.; Tammaro, D.; et al. All-in-one spinal cord stimulation in lymphoproliferative diseases. Front. Neurol. 2021, 11, 550554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sheldon, B.L.; Bao, J.; Khazen, O.; Pilitsis, J.G. Spinal cord stimulation as treatment for cancer and chemotherapy-induced pain. Front. Pain Res. 2021, 2, 699993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Davis, M.P. Cancer-related neuropathic pain: Review and selective topics. Hematol. Oncol. Clin. N. Am. 2018, 32, 417–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Cameron, T. Safety and efficacy of spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain: A 20-year literature review. J. Neurosurg. Spine 2004, 100, 254–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Life 12 00554 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA Flow Chart.
Figure 1. PRISMA Flow Chart.
Life 12 00554 g001
Table
Table 1. Summarize of studies reported from systematic review. N.R. = Not Reported. M = Male; F = Female; Pt = Patient; Pre-op = Pre-operative; and Post-op = Post-operative.
Table 1. Summarize of studies reported from systematic review. N.R. = Not Reported. M = Male; F = Female; Pt = Patient; Pre-op = Pre-operative; and Post-op = Post-operative.
Author, YearType of StudyPatientsMean AgeCancer TypePain etiologyPain LocationStimulation ModalityDrugs IntakePre-Op VAS (1 to 10)Post-Op VAS (1 to 10)Improvement in QoLFollow Up (Months)
Eisenberg, 2002 [4]Case Report1 F50Foramen magnum meningiomaCancer-relatedRight upper and lower limbsTraditional SCS single leadReduction101.5YesN.R.
Cata, 2004 [5]Case series2 M55.5Pt.1: Melanoma (elbow);
Pt.2: Ewing sarcoma		Treatment-relatedBilateral lower limbTraditional SCS dual ledReductionPt1: 4.5;
Pt2: 4.6		Pt1:2;
Pt2: 3.6		YesN.R.
Ting, 2007 [6]Case report1 M48Metastatic pancreatic cancerTreatment-relatedBilateral upper limbTraditional SCS dual leadN.R.N.R.4NoN.R.
Hamid, 2007 [7]Case Report1 M54Lung cancerTreatment-relatedLeft lower limbTraditional SCS single leadReduction100,5Yes18
Yakovlev, 2008 [8]Case Series1 F, 1 M47Pt 1: Spinal metastasis from colon carcinoma;
Pt 2: Anal squamous cell carcinoma		Pt 1: Treatment-related;
Pt 2: Cancer-related		Pt 1: Right lower limb;
Pt 2: N.R.		Traditional SCS dual leadDismissionPt1: 7;
Pt 2: 8		Pt1: 1;
Pt2: 1.5		Yes12
Lee, 2009 [9]Case Report1 F40Spinal meningiomaTreatment-relatedRight lower limbTraditional SCS dual leadReduction91YesN.R.
Yakovlev, 2010 [10]Case Series10 M, 4 F54Lung cancerTreatment-relatedChestTraditional SCS dual lead10 Dismission, 4 Reduction7.423.07Yes12
Viswanathan, 2010 [11]Case Series3 M, 1 F38.75Hemangiomatosis, rhabdosarcoma, spindle cell carcinoma, chondrosarcomaTreatment-relatedPt1: right lower limb;
Pt2: left lower limb;
Pt3: left lip;
Pt4: left low back		Traditional SCS dual leadN.R.NRNRYes29
Nouri, 2011 [12]Case Report1 M57Prostate cancerCancer-relatedTesticular PainTraditional SCS dual leadDismission51Yes1.5
Yakovlev, 2012 [13]Case Series6 F, 9 M56Metastatic colon cancer, anal cancer, and sacrum angiosarcomaTreatment-relatedLow back painTraditional SCS dual lead8 Dismission, 5 Reduction, 2 same therapy7.062.66Yes12
Wininger, 2012 [14]Case Report1 F58Lung cancerTreatment-relatedRight chestTraditional SCS dual leadDismission8,51.5Yes24
Elahi, 2013 [15]Case Report1 M59Prostate cancerTreatment-relatedPerineal pelvic painTraditional SCS dual leadDismission81.5Yes10
Mirpuri, 2015 [16]Case Report1 F65Hereditary Multiple Osteochondromas (HMO)Cancer-relatedLower extremitiesTraditional SCS; Two paddle leadsReduction770–80% pain reliefYes6
Abd-Elsayed, 2016 [17]Case Series1 F39Breast CancerTreatment-relatedLower extremitiesTraditional SCS dual leadReduction895% pain reliefYes24
Hutson, 2017 [18]Case Report1 F69Metastatic sacrum lesion from thyroid cancerCancer-relatedLow back painTraditional SCS dual leadDismissionN.R.ReducedYesN.R.
Maeda et al., 2020 [19]Case Report1 M66Pleural MesotheliomaTreatment-relatedLeft thoraxTraditional SCS dual leadReduction84Yes8
Quintero-Carreño et al., 2021 [20]Case Report1 F60Squamous cell Carcinoma (right popliteal fossa)Treatment relatedRight anterior lower limb Traditional SCS dual leadReduction92Yes3
Chung et al., 2021 * [21]Case Series7 F59.57Breast CancerTreatment relatedPt1: right chest and hand;
Pt2: right chest and axilla;
Pt3: upper extremity;
Pt4: left chest and hand;
Pt5: right chest;
Pt6: right chest and arm;
Pt7: left chest and arm		Traditional SCS dual lead2 Reduction, 2 dismission, 2 same therapy, 1 dead8.64.25 Yes, 1 No, 1 dead22.2
* In this study, Pt n°3 failed the trial period with only 30% pain relief and did not proceed with implantation; Pt n°5 reported > 75% pain relief in trial period, however died before implantation surgery due to her disease.
Table
Table 2. Summarize patients’ characteristics.
Table 2. Summarize patients’ characteristics.
CharacteristicsN°
Total number of articles18
Total number of patients56 (30 Males, 26 Females)
Mean age54.21 ± 8.9 years old
Pain etiology5/56 cancer related; 51/56 treatment related
Mean pre-operative VAS7.63/10
Mean post-operative VAS
VAS reduction (≥50%)		2.18/10
48/56 Yes, 3/56 No, 5/56 N.R.
Drugs intake26 Stop, 20 Reduction, 4 Same therapy, 7 N.R., 1 dead
Improvement in QoL53/56 patients
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Paolini, F.; Ferini, G.; Bonosi, L.; Costanzo, R.; Brunasso, L.; Benigno, U.E.; Porzio, M.; Gerardi, R.M.; Giammalva, G.R.; Umana, G.E.; et al. Spinal Cord Stimulation to Treat Unresponsive Cancer Pain: A Possible Solution in Palliative Oncological Therapy. Life 2022, 12, 554. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12040554

AMA Style

Paolini F, Ferini G, Bonosi L, Costanzo R, Brunasso L, Benigno UE, Porzio M, Gerardi RM, Giammalva GR, Umana GE, et al. Spinal Cord Stimulation to Treat Unresponsive Cancer Pain: A Possible Solution in Palliative Oncological Therapy. Life. 2022; 12(4):554. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12040554

Chicago/Turabian Style

Paolini, Federica, Gianluca Ferini, Lapo Bonosi, Roberta Costanzo, Lara Brunasso, Umberto Emanuele Benigno, Massimiliano Porzio, Rosa Maria Gerardi, Giuseppe Roberto Giammalva, Giuseppe Emmanuele Umana, and et al. 2022. "Spinal Cord Stimulation to Treat Unresponsive Cancer Pain: A Possible Solution in Palliative Oncological Therapy" Life 12, no. 4: 554. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12040554

APA Style

Paolini, F., Ferini, G., Bonosi, L., Costanzo, R., Brunasso, L., Benigno, U. E., Porzio, M., Gerardi, R. M., Giammalva, G. R., Umana, G. E., Graziano, F., Scalia, G., Sturiale, C. L., Di Bonaventura, R., Iacopino, D. G., & Maugeri, R. (2022). Spinal Cord Stimulation to Treat Unresponsive Cancer Pain: A Possible Solution in Palliative Oncological Therapy. Life, 12(4), 554. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12040554

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop