Standard Pain Control or Intrathecal Therapy in Controlling Pain in Patients With Locally Advanced, Unresectable, or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer
RATIONALE: Giving medications in different ways may change their effectiveness in controlling pain. It is not yet known whether intrathecal therapy is more effective than standard therapy in controlling pain in patients with pancreatic cancer.
PURPOSE: This randomized clinical trial is studying standard pain control to see how well it works compared with intrathecal therapy in controlling pain in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic pancreatic cancer.
Drug: morphine sulfate
Device: Medtronic intrathecal pump
|Study Design:||Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Open Label
Primary Purpose: Supportive Care
|Official Title:||A Randomized Study of Optimal Pain Management: Standard Pain Control Versus Early Intervention With Intrathecal Therapy in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer|
- Number of Subjects Per Arm With Decrease in Pain Scores [ Time Frame: 1 month ]The primary objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of pain control between intrathecal opioid delivery and standard analgesia delivery method in patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic pancreatic cancer. The primary end point is the number of subjects on each arm showing a decrease in the change in VAS self-assessment pain intensity rating (VAS pain rating) at one month from initial treatment with respect to the baseline pain score. The change is defined as (the Pain Score at one month of the treatment - the Pain Score at baseline). Serial pain scores will be collected at all assessment time points. Min: zero cm. Max 10cm. A higher value means worse pain. Subjects on each arm will report pain on a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain rating scale, by making a mark on the 10cm horizontal line with a pen and study team will measure distance from the mark to the start of the scale, which will indicate pain score (eg 1 cm, 3 cm 6 cm, etc.).
|Study Start Date:||March 2008|
|Study Completion Date:||March 2011|
|Primary Completion Date:||March 2011 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)|
Active Comparator: morphine
morphine given traditionally (IV, pill, patch). This is standard of care dosing.
Drug: morphine sulfate
This is morphine given in the traditional methods.
Active Comparator: Intrathecal pump
Pump internal used to deliver morphine. This is a newer method for delivery of morphine. Morphine is FDA approved for intrathecal use. The intrathecal pump will be titrated gradually to effect by the interventional pain medicine team. These are the maximum doses and concentrations in keeping with the Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference guidelines: Dose (mg/day):15 ; Conc (mg/cc): 20
Device: Medtronic intrathecal pump
This pump will be inserted into the research subject and then the pump will deliver morphine.
- To compare the effectiveness of pain control comprising intrathecal opioid delivery versus the standard analgesia-delivery method in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic pancreatic cancer.
- To assess the difference of a total amount of opioid consumption (parenteral morphine equivalent) between two different opioids-delivery groups at one month of treatment.
- To assess the average of percent change in Karnofsky performance status with respect to the baseline status between two different analgesic-delivery groups at one month of treatment.
- To assess the difference in quality of life between two different opioids-delivery groups at one month of treatment using the EORTC QLQ-C30.
- To assess overall survival of these patients.
- To assess the safety profile of two different analgesic-delivery methods (i.e., adverse event and serious adverse event).
OUTLINE: Patients are stratified according to Karnofsky performance status (60-80% vs > 80%). Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 treatment arms.
- Arm I (standard pain management): Patients are evaluated by the JHH Pain Medicine Integrated Team for pain, for the potential of diagnostic/neurolytic celiac plexus block, and undergo the institution of or modification of or continuation and titration of oral or parenteral analgesics. Patients undergo a limited, problem-oriented physical exam including weight, vital signs, Karnofsky performance status (KPS), assessment of previously abnormal findings or new complaints, pain scores, analgesia consumption, side effects (i.e., sleepiness, nausea, pruritus, and constipation), and quality-of-life score (EORTC QLQ-C30) once every 2 weeks for 3 months and then once a month thereafter. Patients also keep a diary of pain scores and side effects during the trial. Patients may have their treatment titrated as needed to control their pain. Patients who are not adequately pain controlled or develop debilitating side effects from their therapy may be managed by adjuvant analgesics or be allowed to crossover into the treatment arm of the study to provide compassionate care.
- Arm II (intrathecal therapy): Patients undergo implantation of a Medtronic intrathecal pump and catheter system for delivery of morphine sulfate directly into the spinal fluid. Following implantation, patients undergo a limited, problem-oriented physical exam including vital signs, KPS, assessment of previously abnormal findings or new complaints, pain scores, analgesia consumption, and quality-of life-score (EORTC QLQ-C30) once every 2 weeks for 3 months and then once a month thereafter. Patients are also evaluated by the Interventional Pain Treatment Team for wound status, presence of symptoms of post-dural puncture headache, signs of infection, or meningitis. Patients are followed by the JHH Pain Medicine Integrated Team for evaluation of pain and for institution of or modification of or continuation and titration of oral or parenteral analgesics.
After completion of study treatment, patients are followed for 1 year.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00660348
|United States, Maryland|
|Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins|
|Baltimore, Maryland, United States, 21231-2410|
|Principal Investigator:||Michael Erdek, MD||Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center|