Skip to content

Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Coeliac Plexus Neurolysis for Cancer Pain

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Coeliac Plexus Neurolysis for Cancer Pain: Chemical Versus Radiofrequency Ablation

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04801082
Enrollment
54
Registered
2021-03-16
Start date
2021-03-31
Completion date
2025-03-31
Last updated
2021-03-22

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Malignancy, Pain Management

Keywords

Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided, Radiofrequency Ablation, Coeliac plexus neurolysis, Intra-abdominal malignancy, Pain Relief, Chemical coeliac plexus neurolysis, Coeliac plexus ablation, Cancer pain

Brief summary

Many cancer patients suffer from intractable pain and which is often suboptimally controlled by even strong opioid analgesics. Coeliac plexus neurolysis (CPN) is procedure which intended to permanently destroy the nociceptive pathway that transmits the pain caused by the tumour. It can be with different approaches, such as percutaneously guided by fluoroscopy, echo-endoscopically or surgically with endoscopic approach being the more popular one in many centers equipped with echo-endoscopic services. The effect of CPN has been well established by some retrospective series. The overall response rate to CPN ranges from 70-90%, however, the analgesic effect is limited and up to roughly around 3 months. It is believed that the short-lasting analgesic effect is related to incomplete neurolysis by absolute alcohol injection. Recently, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of coeliac plexus has been introduced as another mode of CPN. So far, only one small single center randomized controlled trial (RCT) suggesting superior performance in favour to CPN using RFA. This result has to be validated and by a RCT with larger sample size. In addition, data concerning the quality of life (QOL) improvement and cost-effectiveness need to be further elucidated. Therefore, the aim of this study is to perform a RCT to look into these issues.

Detailed description

The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of EUS-CPN by chemical ablation using alcohol injection versus by radiofrequency ablation in patients with cancer pain related to intra-abdominal malignancy. This is a randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of this new treatment approach.

Interventions

Chemical ablation is performed by injection of 10 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine, followed by 10 mL of 98% dehydrated alcohol using a 22G FNA needle (Cook and Olympus)

DEVICERadiofrequency Ablation

coeliac plexus is identified and punctured with 19G EUSRA RFA needle with 10W-30W of energy for 10-50s bilaterally or unilaterally depends on individual anatomical characteristics.

Sponsors

The University of Hong Kong
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Age ≥18 year-old * Patients who give informed consent to the study * Suboptimal pain control with regular analgesics * Inoperable cancer of pancreas, biliary system and liver (both primary or secondary)

Exclusion criteria

* Patients who refuse to give consent * Patients aged \<18 years * EUS not possible due to: * Problem related to scope insertion such as trismus, stenosis of the upper GI tract * Coagulopathy with INR \>1.5 or platelet count \< 70 * Low oxygen saturation or extreme blood pressure render endoscopic procedure unsafe

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change of pain score4 weeks after the procedurechange of pain score at 4th week after the procedure (by VAS score)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Analgesic requirementUp to 100 months (From the date of procedure until the date of death from any cause)decrease in analgesic requirement
Technical success rate1 daytechnical success rate
Clinical success rateThrough study completion, an average of 2 yeardecrease in pain level by 30% from the pre-procedural baseline
Duration of procedureUp to 1 hourtime from injection of pre-medication to procedure last observation recording at the procedure suite
Time to pain score drop by 50%Through study completion, an average of 2 yearTime to Visual Analog Score drop by 50%
Short term complication rateUp to 1 weekcomplication rate
Change of pain score2 weeks, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weekschange of pain score (Visual Analog Score) after the procedure
Hospital length of stayUp to 100 monthsHospital length of stay
Health status (Quality of life)2 weeks, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeksThe Short Form (36) Health Survey
Quality of life (QOL) in patients with pancreatic cancer2 weeks, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeksPAN-26 questionnaire
Quality of life (QOL) of cancer patients2 weeks, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeksQLQ-C30 questionnaire
Cost-effectivenessThrough study completion, an average of 2 yearTotal cost ($) of the treatment
Long term complication rateThrough study completion, an average of 2 yearcomplication rate

Countries

Hong Kong

Contacts

Primary ContactWan Yee Chiu, BISC
krissy23@hku.hk+852 2255 4848
Backup ContactKa Wing Ma, MBBS, MS
kawingma@hku.hk+852 2255 3025

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026