ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Case report: Technical risk mitigation and management strategies of semi-implantable intrathecal drug delivery systems for advanced cancer pain: a case-based study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study investigated the clinical efficacy, technical risks, and management strategies of the semi-implantable intrathecal drug delivery system (IDDS) as a "fourth-step" analgesic regimen for refractory advanced cancer pain. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed three representative cases of patients with advanced cancer pain who underwent semi-implantable IDDS implantation under fluoroscopic guidance in a digital subtraction angiography (DSA) suite.The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB), and all patients provided written informed consent. Analgesic efficacy was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score. Technical challenges-including placement verification without cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) backflow, mechanical failures, and opioid dependency-were evaluated to develop standardized management protocols. Results: Significant analgesia was achieved in all cases. Preoperative VAS scores (8-10) decreased to 0-4 within 24 hours and stabilized at 0-1 after 72 hours. Specific technical risks were successfully mitigated through individualized strategies. Placement verification: In a cachectic patient (Case 1) with an iodine contrast allergy and absent CSF backflow, a "morphine test dose" (0.1 mg bolus) was utilized as functional confirmation of subarachnoid placement, justified by the rapid 10-minute analgesic onset. Mechanical issues: Repeated occlusion alarms in Case 2, caused by pressure sensitivity at the device's minimum flow rate (0.1 mL/h), were resolved by diluting the drug concentration to increase the basal flow rate and implementing a "U-shaped" redundant catheter loop at the port site. Opioid withdrawal: Case 3 developed acute psychological withdrawal symptoms (COWS score: 14) following the rapid reduction of high-dose systemic opioids. This was managed through a multidisciplinary cross-titration protocol involving oral oxycodone and cognitive behavioral therapy. No infectious complications occurred during the follow-up period (up to 8 weeks). Conclusion: The semi-implantable IDDS serves as a crucial, cost-effective palliative option for patients with advanced cancer pain and a life expectancy of 3-6 months. While its externalized design introduces technical risks, these can be effectively managed through high-resolution fluoroscopy-guided placement, flow-rate optimization, and multidisciplinary support. Standardized troubleshooting algorithms and strict patient stratification are essential to achieve the goal of "pain-free survival."
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.