Abstract
Managing cancer-related pain poses significant challenges, prompting research into alternative approaches such as ketamine. This systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the impact of ketamine as an adjuvant to opioid therapy for cancer-related pain. We conducted a literature review in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus from 1 January 1982 to 20 October 2023. Abstracts were screened against inclusion criteria, and eligible studies underwent a full-text review. Data was extracted from the included studies, and a framework analysis approach summarized the evidence regarding ketamine’s use in patients with cancer. A total of 21 randomized clinical trials were included, and the quality of all the included studies was good or fair. Significant improvements in pain scores and reduced morphine consumption were consistently observed with intravenous ketamine administration for postoperative pain control, particularly when combined with other analgesics such as morphine. Ketamine was less effective when used as an analgesic for chronic pain management, with several studies on neuropathic pain or chemotherapy-induced neuropathy finding minimal significant effect on reduction of pain scores or morphine requirements. The efficacy of ketamine in pain management appears to depend on factors such as dosage, route of administration, and patient population.
1. Introduction
Despite advancements in pharmacological therapies and understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying cancer pain, the prevalence of cancer pain remains high [1]. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses reveal that over one-third of patients experience pain related to cancer after curative treatment, and two-thirds of patients with advanced or metastatic cancer report symptoms of pain [1,2]. Studies showed up to 20% of patients with cancer undergoing opioid titration develop refractory pain or experience a poor analgesic response and intolerable side effects [3,4]. Patients with cancer may also undergo a variety of surgeries, with pain being an expected outcome. Pain may develop because of the tumor itself, either through the obstruction of surrounding structures or invasion of tissue and subsequent inflammation [5]. Pre-existing oncological pain and opioid tolerance represent unique challenges in managing acute pain in the perioperative period in this specific population [6]. Additionally, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common and challenging side effect associated with many anticancer agents that persists in 30% of patients following chemotherapy [7]. Inadequate pain management in cancer patients adversely affects physical function, compromises psychological well-being, disrupts social interactions, leads to increased emergency department visits and hospitalization, and undermines the effectiveness of antitumor treatment [8,9].
The management of moderate to severe cancer-related pain involves a combination of opioid analgesics administered in rotation and through dose titration to mitigate the effects of opioid toxicity [3,10,11,12]. The advent of stepwise multimodal approaches to pain management necessitates alternative therapeutic strategies beyond opioid administration to alleviate the symptoms associated with cancer-related pain. Ketamine, typically used as an anesthetic, is a N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist capable of treating acute and chronic pain at low, subanesthetic doses [13]. Despite growing evidence regarding the benefits of ketamine as a rapid antidepressant and antisuicidal agent, [14] its efficacy in the treatment of chronic cancer pain remains unclear [15,16]. Ketamine can be administered as an adjuvant to opioid therapy in patients with cancer when their pain becomes opioid-resistant, improving patient outcomes and quality of life [4,17]. The various modes by which ketamine can be administered, along with variability in dosage and duration, pose a challenge in the creation of standardized treatment guidelines for this drug. Many clinicians may hesitate to administer ketamine considering the ambiguous clinical evidence and adverse event profile associated with the treatment [17].
This review aims to systematically summarize and analyze the existing literature on ketamine administration within the cancer population. The review specifically focuses on the effectiveness of ketamine as an adjuvant to opioid therapy for managing both acute and chronic pain among patients with cancer. Additionally, the review compares and reports different methods of ketamine administration in conjunction with opioids to identify optimal approaches for maximizing efficacy and minimizing side effects.
2. Materials and Methods
A systematic literature review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (Appendix A). The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (registration number: CRD42022347551).
2.1. Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The inclusion criteria of the review consisted of articles assessing the relationship between administering ketamine to adult patients with cancer and pain. Additionally, articles were required to be peer-reviewed, report the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), and written in the English language. We decided to only include RCTs because systematic reviews of RCTs are regarded as the highest quality evidence [18,19]. Articles were excluded if the target population was children (younger than 18), in addition to any articles focused only on molecular aspects of ketamine. A detailed list of inclusion and exclusion criteria can be found in Appendix B.
2.2. Information Sources and Search Strategy
The initial search was intentionally broad to capture the inclusion criteria and to minimize the risk of overlooking potentially relevant studies. Cancer and ketamine administration were the main components of the search strategy. Using a combination of subject headings and keywords, the search strategy was implemented into MEDLINE® (via PubMed®, Bethesda, MD, USA), EMBASE, and Scopus from 1 January 1982 to 20 October 2023, when all searches were completed. The citations of included studies for relevant articles and references were manually scanned from similar systematic reviews to ensure no relevant studies were missed during indexing. Gray literature was not included, as we considered only peer-reviewed published studies. To exclude animal studies, we applied the Cochrane human studies filter. We also added a systematic review keyword and publication type filter to exclude systematic review articles. Appendix C shows the complete strategy for each of the searches.
2.3. Study Selection Process
Two researchers screened the titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria. Discrepancies were resolved through discussions between members of each pair. When necessary, a third team member reviewed the discrepancy until a consensus was reached. Inter-rater reliability of reviews was achieved by ensuring three iterations of sample reviews were conducted with each person reviewing 30 articles until an average agreement of 83% was reached. The full-text articles were screened in a similar manner.
2.4. Study Quality Assessment
Two independent researchers assessed the quality of included studies using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for the controlled intervention studies [20]. We assigned the quality of each study as good, fair, or poor (see Appendix D), and any disagreements in the risk of bias scoring were resolved by consensus or by a discussion with a third author.
2.5. Data Extraction and Analysis
A meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity in populations and in how pain was measured. Using a framework analysis approach, we summarized the evidence on using ketamine in patients with cancer [21]. The framework analysis approach consisted of five stages: familiarization, framework selection, indexing, charting, and mapping and interpretation.
First, team members familiarized themselves with the literature in addition to reading included studies. Second, conceptual frameworks were identified that served as the codes for data abstraction. We used a thematic framework to describe studies in which research has investigated administering ketamine in patients with cancer, which included: publication year, design, outcome(s), type of cancer, objective(s), country, setting, dosage, outcomes, and the relationship between using the ketamine and outcomes. Data were also collected on the route of ketamine administration (e.g., infusion and intranasal). Pairs of authors completed charting and indexing by inputting selected text from included studies into the appropriate cells within our framework. Data extraction from the included studies was achieved using a standardized data extraction form in Microsoft Excel (version 2016). Last, extracted data were analyzed from each cell to describe the studies and findings of using ketamine in patients with cancer.
3. Results
3.1. Study Selection
The searches in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus yielded 1487 citations. These citations were exported to Endnote (Version 20), and 33 duplicates were removed using the Endnote deduplication feature. This resulted in a total of 1454 unique citations found across all database searches. As can be seen in Figure 1, titles and abstracts of the 1454 articles were screened; 306 were selected for full-text screening. Of the 306 studies, 285 were excluded at full-text screening or during extraction attempts with the consensus of two co-authors; 21 unique eligible studies were included [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42].
Figure 1.
PRISMA flow diagram.
3.2. Characteristics of Included Studies
The included studies were published between 2001 and 2019. Included studies focused on different cancer types, including but not limited to abdominal cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, and prostate cancer. Characteristics of included studies are shown in Table 1. We found that outcomes were primarily divided into two categories: treatment of pain postoperatively in patients with cancer undergoing oncologic surgery or treatment for refractory pain. Several studies also examined CIPN as a component of cancer-related pain. Ketamine was administered via various modes of delivery, including intrathecally, intramuscularly, subcutaneously, topically, orally, and intravenously.
Table 1.
Characteristics of the included studies.
3.3. Quality Assessment of Included Studies
The quality of all the included studies was good or fair. The details of the quality assessment of the included studies are shown in Appendix D.
3.4. Intravenous Administration of Ketamine
Eight studies examined the effect of intravenously administered ketamine on pain scores in patients with cancer [25,26,32,33,36,37,39,42]. While all eight studies examined pain as either a primary or secondary outcome, the type of pain assessed varied. Six studies investigated the effect of peri- or pre-operative ketamine on reducing postoperative pain scores following oncologic surgery in the inpatient setting [25,26,33,36,37,39], including pain at surgical sites [32], and one study focused on the use of ketamine for chronic pain therapy [42]. Further characteristics of the studies, such as the dosage and types of pain scores utilized, can be found in Table 2. Most studies examining postoperative outcomes used the visual analog scale (VAS) to evaluate pain scores [26,33,36,37,39,42]. Ketamine was used as the sole pharmacological treatment in only two of the eight studies [26,32]. Other studies compared the efficacy of morphine in combination with ketamine in reducing pain scores [25,33].
Table 2.
Ketamine administration details and its effectiveness on pain management based on route of administration.
Effect on Pain Scores
Seven of the eight studies found significant improvement in pain scores following administration of ketamine [25,26,32,33,36,39,42]. However, while one study concluded that intraoperative infusions of ketamine helped postoperative pain up to three months after breast cancer surgery, it failed to reduce clinically significant pain and improve patients’ quality of life [32]. One of the eight studies did not find significant improvement in pain scores following administration of ketamine. The study found that IV ketamine administered throughout surgery reduced postoperative consumption of morphine but that there was no significant difference in VAS scores following surgery [37].
3.5. Intrathecal Administration of Ketamine
Three of the included studies examined outcomes of pain associated with intrathecal administration of ketamine hydrochloride [22,34,38]. Two of the studies specifically looked at postoperative pain following oncological surgeries and procedures with a one-time dose of 0.1 mg/kg ketamine administered perioperatively [22,38] and one study [34] examined the use of 0.2 mg/kg ketamine for visual analog scores > 3/10 over a 25 day period in refractory cancer pain therapy in combination with morphine to evaluate analgesic effects.
Effect on Pain Scores
Significant improvement in pain scores was found with administration of morphine in conjunction with intrathecal ketamine. One study found that a combination of bupivacaine, dexmedetomidine, and ketamine significantly improved postoperative analgesia when compared to either drug (dexmedetomidine or ketamine) alone [38]. In a similar surgical setting, a combination of intrathecal ketamine with morphine reduced total postoperative morphine consumption with good overall postoperative analgesia when compared to either drug alone [22]. Another study concluded that ketamine enhanced epidural morphine analgesia when administered in the early stages of terminal cancer pain therapy without increasing the incidence of adverse effects, while also reducing morphine requirement during the period of observation [34].
3.6. Intramuscular Administration of Ketamine
Four studies examined intramuscular administration of ketamine for the treatment of postoperative pain [23,31,40,41]. As seen in Table 2, one study examined a constant, fixed dose of ketamine [23], while the other compared escalating doses of intramuscular ketamine [41]. Preoperatively, a third study used 1 mg/kg ketamine in a Pecs block prior to breast cancer surgery [40]. Similarly, another study used either 0.5 mg/kg or 1 mg/kg of ketamine as part of a total peripheral nerve block in conjunction with bupivacaine [31].
Effect on Pain Scores
Two studies found that ketamine administration resulted in lower acute pain scores and morphine consumption following surgery [23,41]. Preoperatively, a modified Pecs block (ketamine + bupivacaine) prolonged the time to first request of analgesia and reduced total opioid consumption [40]. Ketamine, in addition to bupivacaine, as a peripheral nerve block preoperatively was also associated with lower morphine PCA consumption and longer analgesic effects [31].
3.7. Subcutaneous Infusion of Ketamine
One study examined the effects of subcutaneous infusions of ketamine as pain therapy for refractory cancer pain [29]. Ketamine alone was compared to placebo. As seen in Table 2, pain was evaluated with the Brief Pain Inventory score. The study utilized a dose-escalating regimen (100, 300, or 500 mg) of ketamine over a 5-day period in the treatment of refractory cancer pain.
Effect on Pain Scores
This study examining the effect of subcutaneous ketamine infusion on chronic cancer pain found that ketamine did not have a net clinical benefit when used as an adjunct to opioids and standard analgesics in refractory cancer pain [29].
3.8. Topical Administration of Ketamine
Two studies examined the topical administration of ketamine for the purpose of alleviating CIPN [24,28]. Similar dosages of ketamine (in addition to amitriptyline) were used in one study using up to 80mg of ketamine cream [28] compared to 20mg of ketamine applied twice daily in the other study [24].
Effect on Pain Scores
The study that utilized a greater dosage of ketamine suggested that two percent ketamine plus 4% amitriptyline cream does not decrease CIPN symptoms in cancer survivors [28]. Similarly, while pain scores improved following the administration of ketamine cream in the other study, the overall effect size was not large [24].
3.9. Oral Administration of Ketamine
Three studies assessed pain outcomes following oral administration of ketamine [27,30,35]. All studies examined either refractory oncogenic pain [35] or neuropathic pain [27,30]. Varied dosages of ketamine were used, as seen in Table 2.
Effect on Pain Scores
Pain scales varied, with one study using the VAS [35], and another using an index pain score from the sensory component of the short form McGill Pain Questionnaire [27]. While the studies examining neuropathic pain found no significant improvement in pain scores when compared to placebo [27,30], the study investigating refractory oncogenic pain found that ketamine was an effective co-adjuvant analgesic with morphine compared to morphine alone [35]. One study examining neuropathic pain noted the small number of patients studied, with only 22 patients analyzed following 6 drop-outs [30].
3.10. Adverse Effects of Ketamine
All studies assessed adverse side effects occurring following administration of ketamine, including psychiatric side effects or other adverse effects related to changes in blood pressure and respiratory, cardiovascular, or gastrointestinal changes. As can be seen in Table 3, side effects were assessed with a variety of different scales, including the Profile of Mood States (POMS) or through clinical signs such as heart rate. Most of the included studies reported minimal to no psychiatric side effects (such as dissociation, psychosis, or changes to cognition) with the administration of ketamine. One study found significant intergroup differences in the development of psychotoxicity following ketamine administration [29].
Table 3.
Secondary outcomes and side effects reported in included studies.
The most common adverse effects observed in the studies included nausea and vomiting [22,23,25,26,28,30,31,33,34,36,38,39,40,42]. In these studies, there were no significant differences between placebo and treatment groups in the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects such as nausea and vomiting. One study reported bladder spasms in 46.4% of patients in the treatment group; however, this effect was greatly reduced on postoperative days 1 and 2, with no differences being statistically significant [25]. Serious adverse effects, such as bradyarrhythmia [29,31,38] and cardiac arrest [29], were reported in some studies. Immediate postoperative sedation score was significantly increased in groups of patients administered ketamine compared to the control group in one study [38].
4. Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first review focusing specifically on RCTs regarding the effectiveness of various forms of ketamine as an adjuvant to opioid therapy for managing acute and chronic pain among patients with cancer. Our results showed ketamine was most effective when used in conjunction with another analgesic such as morphine. When ketamine was used to reduce postoperative pain levels and morphine requirements postoperatively, it showed significant improvements in 13 of 14 studies [22,23,25,26,31,32,33,36,38,39,40,41,42]. However, ketamine was less effective when used as an analgesic for other types of pain arising from cancer, with four of the seven studies examining refractory cancer pain or neuropathic pain finding minimal effect on the reduction of pain scores or morphine requirements [27,28,29,30]. While multiple studies have shown that ketamine reduces refractory cancer pain [43,44,45], its use as a viable treatment option remains controversial. The difficulty in assessing effective pain control may lie in the heterogeneity of the cancer population and difficulty in defining outcomes in relation to pain. Psychological factors may also contribute to increased pain amongst patients with cancer, which might necessitate a more comprehensive approach than just the application of one intervention.
Our results showed that intravenous ketamine was most commonly used to reduce postoperative pain scores in the setting of acute pain rather than for refractory cancer pain. Ketamine was most often used preoperatively or intraoperatively via intravenous administration for postoperative pain control. Of the eight studies that examined postoperative pain control with intravenous ketamine, seven found that subanesthetic doses of ketamine significantly reduced pain outcomes or morphine consumption following surgery. Four of those studies used ketamine in conjunction with another analgesic agent such as morphine [25,33,39,42]. The use of ketamine as an opiate-sparing agent may be particularly important for patients who may have a tolerance to opiates. Patients with cancer and chronic cancer-related pain are more likely to have developed tolerance to opiates as a form of pain control [46]. Currently, the indications for esketamine, the “S” enantiomer form of ketamine, do not extend beyond treatment-resistant depression and suicidality [47]. Independent of long-term opioid therapy, depression is prevalent in 20–30% of patients with cancer [48]. Studies show that a bidirectional relationship may exist between depression and long-term opioid therapy in the treatment of non-cancer related pain [49,50,51,52]. While fewer studies have examined this relationship within the population of patients with cancer, the possible interdependence of depression and opioid use suggests a potential role for ketamine in addressing the difficulties of treating chronic cancer pain that may be refractory to opiate medications or neuropathic in nature. When considering the potential role of ketamine in chronic cancer pain management, the available data suggests that ketamine may be more efficacious when used in conjunction with an adjuvant analgesic. As a result, the introduction of novel analgesic agents such as ketamine may be integral in multimodal pain regimens for patients with cancer to address comorbidities such as depression and reduce requirements for opioid medications.
When used in combination with agents such as morphine as part of multimodal pain control, multiple studies demonstrated that ketamine is more likely to reduce pain scores and postoperative morphine consumption. This may be due to the fact that ketamine can attenuate morphine tolerance by increasing concentrations of morphine within the brain [53]. Ultimately, further research is needed to determine the degree to which the addition of ketamine to chronic cancer pain management may improve pain outcomes, along with consumption of oral morphine equivalents, throughout a patient’s experience with their disease.
This review showed that intrathecal administration of ketamine was most effective in reducing postoperative pain and terminal cancer pain in conjunction with other agents. The primary adjuvant agent administered with ketamine was morphine. Other agents utilized in conjunction with ketamine included bupivacaine and dexmedetomidine. These results are in line with previous research on intrathecal utilization of ketamine. In one meta-analysis of intrathecal administration of ketamine as an adjunct to bupivacaine following a variety of surgical procedures (including lower abdominal and lower limb surgery), time to first analgesic request was prolonged [54]. More studies are needed to determine the duration of the effects of ketamine following intrathecal administration. The benefits of intrathecal administration may be more prominent for postoperative pain outcomes rather than as an adjunct in treatment modalities for terminal cancer pain.
Administration of ketamine alone was most commonly performed in studies examining the intramuscular approach. Ketamine administration both before and after surgery was found to significantly reduce postoperative pain scores and delay rescue analgesia with morphine.
Included studies only examined oral administration in relation to pain outcomes associated with chronic cancer pain therapy. The highest dosage of ketamine of all 21 studies was utilized during oral administration, with up to 400 mg/day administered for patients [27]. However, this study did not find ketamine to have significantly greater effects than placebo, suggesting that escalating doses of oral ketamine are not effective for chronic cancer pain therapy. In addition, the efficacy of ketamine in this study was analyzed with respect to CIPN, which was the least investigated type of pain across all included studies. The lack of consistency in the assessment and diagnosis of CIPN may also make it difficult to assess for clinical improvements [7].
Finally, ketamine’s side effects, mainly neurological side effects, pose challenges to its utilization, emphasizing the importance of exploring alternative modes. Topical analgesics may play an important role in chronic pain management without the serious side effects associated with the medication. However, the two included studies [24,28] that evaluated topical ketamine use found that there was limited effect for CIPN. Of note, the daily dosages used for topical administration ranged from 40 mg to 80 mg. As no adverse systemic effects were reported at those doses in either study, further research on increased titration of ketamine within analgesic creams is warranted.
This review has several limitations. First, cancer-related pain may manifest differently, depending on the location of the tumor as well as the nature and severity of the cancer. In this aspect, the efficacy of ketamine in addressing pain may not be generalizable to all types and degrees of cancer. In addition, the analysis of pain, an already subjective measure, was investigated using a variety of scales across included studies. This could potentially influence the interpretation of the clinical efficacy of ketamine within our review. Second, in our assessment of the efficacy of ketamine for treatment of pain in cancer patients, we excluded studies that focused only on biological aspects of ketamine and thus may have missed papers that provided explanations of the molecular pathway between ketamine and pain. Finally, we may have missed relevant papers published in other languages by limiting our systematic review to English-only articles.
5. Conclusions
Intravenous ketamine, in dosages ranging from 0.1 mg/kg to 0.5 mg/kg, was most efficacious in improving pain scores in patients with cancer for up to 72 h following surgery, particularly in conjunction with other analgesics such as morphine. Fewer studies examined the use of ketamine for pain therapy, and those that did found less benefit in terms of pain scores following treatment for refractory chronic cancer pain (including CIPN). Ketamine was well tolerated across all studies that examined the side effects associated with ketamine administration.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, J.H., M.B.B., H.S.L.J., L.A. and A.A.T.; methodology, A.A.T. and L.A.; software, S.M.T. and A.A.T.; validation, S.M.T. and A.A.T.; formal analysis, K.S.A., L.A., H.H., R.T., S.S. and A.A.T.; investigation, K.S.A., L.A., H.H., R.T., S.S., L.A. and A.A.T.; resources, S.M.T. and A.A.T.; data curation, S.M.T., S.S., H.H., R.T. and L.A.; writing—original draft preparation, D.B.T., K.T. and A.A.T.; writing—review and editing, M.B.B., H.S.L.J., J.H., D.B.T., K.T., L.A. and A.A.T.; visualization, LA; supervision, A.A.T.; project administration, L.A.; funding acquisition, A.A.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement
No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A. PRSMA 2020 Checklist: A Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews
| Section and Topic | Item # | Checklist Item | Location Where Item is Reported |
| TITLE | |||
| Title | 1 | Identify the report as a systematic review. | Page 1 |
| ABSTRACT | |||
| Abstract | 2 | See the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist. | Pages 2 and 3 |
| INTRODUCTION | |||
| Rationale | 3 | Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge. | Pages 3 and 4 |
| Objectives | 4 | Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses. | Page 5 |
| METHODS | |||
| Eligibility criteria | 5 | Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses. | Page 5 |
| Information sources | 6 | Specify all databases, registers, websites, organizations, reference lists, and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted. | Pages 5 and 6 |
| Search strategy | 7 | Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers, and websites, including any filters and limits used. | Pages 5 and 6 |
| Selection process | 8 | Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and, if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. | Page 6 |
| Data collection process | 9 | Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. | Pages 6 and 7 |
| Data items | 10a | List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g., for all measures, time points, and analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect. | Pages 6 and 7 |
| 10b | List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g., participant and intervention characteristics, and funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information. | Pages 6 and 7 | |
| Study risk of bias assessment | 11 | Specify the methods used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. | Page 6 |
| Effect measures | 12 | Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g., risk ratio and mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results. | NA |
| Synthesis methods | 13a | Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g., tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing them against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)). | Pages 6 and 7 |
| 13b | Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling missing summary statistics or data conversions. | Pages 6 and 7 | |
| 13c | Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display the results of individual studies and syntheses. | Pages 6 and 7 | |
| 13d | Describe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used. | NA | |
| 13e | Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g., subgroup analysis and meta-regression). | NA | |
| 13f | Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results. | NA | |
| Reporting bias assessments | 14 | Describe any methods used to assess the risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases). | NA |
| Certainty assessment | 15 | Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome. | NA |
| RESULTS | |||
| Study selection | 16a | Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram. | Pages 7 and 8 |
| 16b | Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria but were excluded, and explain why they were excluded. | Pages 7 and 8 | |
| Study characteristics | 17 | Cite each included study and present its characteristics. | Page 8 |
| Risk of bias in studies | 18 | Present assessments of the risk of bias for each included study. | Page 8 |
| Results of individual studies | 19 | For all outcomes present in each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g., confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots. | Pages 9–10 |
| Results of syntheses | 20a | For each synthesis, briefly summarize the characteristics and risk of bias among the contributing studies. | Page 9 |
| 20b | Present the results of all statistical analyses conducted. If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g., confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect. | NA | |
| 20c | Present the results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results. | NA | |
| 20d | Present the results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results. | NA | |
| Reporting biases | 21 | Present assessments of the risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed. | Page 8 |
| Certainty of evidence | 22 | Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed. | NA |
| DISCUSSION | |||
| Discussion | 23a | Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence. | Pages 9–13 |
| 23b | Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review. | Page 14 | |
| 23c | Discuss any limitations of the review processes used. | Page 14 | |
| 23d | Discuss the implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research. | Pages 9–13 | |
| OTHER INFORMATION | |||
| Registration and protocol | 24a | Provide registration information for the review, including the register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered. | Page 5 |
| 24b | Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared. | Page 5 | |
| 24c | Describe and explain any amendments to the information provided at registration or in the protocol. | Pages 5 to 9 | |
| Support | 25 | Describe the sources of financial or non-financial support for the review and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review. | Page 14 |
| Competing interests | 26 | Declare any competing interests of the review authors. | Page 15 |
| Availability of data, code, and other materials | 27 | Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review. | Page 5 |
| From: Page MJ et al. [55]. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ (accessed on 22 February 2022). | |||
Appendix B. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Screening Studies
| Study Characteristic | Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
| Population |
|
|
| Intervention |
| |
| Comparison |
| |
| Outcome |
|
|
| Study design |
|
|
| Time/location |
| |
| Publication types |
|
|
Appendix C. Search Strategy Sample
- Source PubMedItems found 77325 Mar 2024Search Query
(((Ketamine[Mesh] OR Ketamin*[ TIAB] OR Ketalar[TIAB] OR Ketaject[TIAB] OR Ketanest[TIAB] OR esketamin*[ TIAB] OR spravato*[TIAB])) AND ((Neoplasms[mesh] OR neoplasms[tiab] OR neoplasm[tiab] OR neoplasia[tiab] OR neoplasias[tiab] OR neoplastic[tiab] OR dysplastic[tiab] OR dysplasia[tiab] OR dysplasias[tiab] OR “Early Detection of Cancer”[Mesh] OR cancer[tiab] OR cancers[tiab] OR cancerous[tiab] OR malignant[tiab] OR malignancy[tiab] OR malignancies[tiab] OR metastatic[tiab] OR metastasis[tiab] OR metastases[tiab] OR “Biomarkers, Tumor”[Mesh] OR tumor[tiab] OR tumors[tiab] OR tumour[tiab] OR tumours[tiab] OR adenocarcinoma[tiab] OR adenocarcinomas[tiab] OR carcinoma[tiab] OR carcinomas[tiab] OR sarcoma[tiab] OR sarcomas[tiab] OR lymphoma[tiab] OR lymphomas[tiab] OR melanoma[tiab] OR melanomas[tiab] OR leukemia[tiab] OR leukemias[tiab] OR “Cancer Care Facilities”[Mesh] OR “Oncology Service, Hospital”[Mesh] OR oncology[tiab] OR oncologic[tiab] OR chemotherapy[tiab] OR chemotherapies[tiab] OR “neoadjuvant therapy”[tiab] OR “neoadjuvant therapies”[tiab] OR chemoradiotherapy[tiab] OR chemoradiotherapies[tiab] OR radioimmunotherapy[tiab] OR radiotherapy[tiab] OR radioimmunotherapies[tiab])) AND (english[Filter])) NOT ((“infant”[mesh] OR “child”[mesh] OR “adolescent”[mesh] OR infant[tiab] OR child[tiab] OR adolescent[tiab] OR teenager[tiab] OR Juvenile[tiab]) AND (english[Filter])) AND (english[Filter]) AND (english[Filter])
- Source Embase
- Items found 3260
- 25 Mar 2024
- Search Query
(‘esketamine’/exp OR ‘ketamine’/exp OR ‘ketofol’/exp OR ketamin*:ab,ti OR ketalar:ab,ti OR ketaject:ab,ti OR ketanest:ab,ti OR esketamin*:ab,ti OR ketofol*:ab,ti OR arketamine*:ab,ti OR ketalar*:ab,ti OR spravato*:ab,ti) AND (‘malignant neoplasm’/exp OR ‘metastasis’/exp OR ‘lymphoma’/exp OR ‘sarcoma’/exp OR ‘chemoradiotherapy’/exp OR ‘chemotherapy’/exp OR ‘oncology ward’/exp OR neoplasms:ab,ti OR neoplasm:ab,ti OR neoplasia:ab,ti OR neoplasias:ab,ti OR neoplastic:ab,ti OR dysplastic:ab,ti OR dysplasia:ab,ti OR dysplasias:ab,ti OR cancer:ab,ti OR cancers:ab,ti OR cancerous:ab,ti OR malignant:ab,ti OR malignancy:ab,ti OR malignancies:ab,ti OR metastatic:ab,ti OR metastasis:ab,ti OR metastases:ab,ti OR tumor:ab,ti OR tumors:ab,ti OR tumour:ab,ti OR tumours:ab,ti OR adenocarcinoma:ab,ti OR adenocarcinomas:ab,ti OR carcinoma:ab,ti OR carcinomas:ab,ti OR sarcoma:ab,ti OR sarcomas:ab,ti OR lymphoma:ab,ti OR lymphomas:ab,ti OR melanoma:ab,ti OR melanomas:ab,ti OR leukemia:ab,ti OR leukemias:ab,ti OR oncology:ab,ti OR oncologic:ab,ti OR chemotherapy:ab,ti OR chemotherapies:ab,ti OR ‘neoadjuvant therapy’:ab,ti OR ‘neoadjuvant therapies’:ab,ti OR chemoradiotherapy:ab,ti OR chemoradiotherapies:ab,ti OR radioimmunotherapy:ab,ti OR radiotherapy:ab,ti OR radioimmunotherapies:ab,ti) NOT (infant:ab,ti OR child:ab,ti OR adolescent:ab,ti OR teenager:ab,ti OR juvenile:ab,ti OR ‘infant’/exp OR ‘child’/exp OR ‘adolescent’/exp) AND [english]/lim
(ketamin*:ab,ti OR ketalar:ab,ti OR ketaject:ab,ti OR ketanest:ab,ti OR esketamin*:ab,ti OR ketofol*:ab,ti OR arketamine*:ab,ti OR ketalar*:ab,ti OR spravato*:ab,ti) AND (‘malignant neoplasm’/exp OR ‘metastasis’/exp OR ‘lymphoma’/exp OR ‘sarcoma’/exp OR ‘chemoradiotherapy’/exp OR ‘chemotherapy’/exp OR ‘oncology ward’/exp OR neoplasms:ab,ti OR neoplasm:ab,ti OR neoplasia:ab,ti OR neoplasias:ab,ti OR neoplastic:ab,ti OR dysplastic:ab,ti OR dysplasia:ab,ti OR dysplasias:ab,ti OR cancer:ab,ti OR cancers:ab,ti OR cancerous:ab,ti OR malignant:ab,ti OR malignancy:ab,ti OR malignancies:ab,ti OR metastatic:ab,ti OR metastasis:ab,ti OR metastases:ab,ti OR tumor:ab,ti OR tumors:ab,ti OR tumour:ab,ti OR tumours:ab,ti OR adenocarcinoma:ab,ti OR adenocarcinomas:ab,ti OR carcinoma:ab,ti OR carcinomas:ab,ti OR sarcoma:ab,ti OR sarcomas:ab,ti OR lymphoma:ab,ti OR lymphomas:ab,ti OR melanoma:ab,ti OR melanomas:ab,ti OR leukemia:ab,ti OR leukemias:ab,ti OR oncology:ab,ti OR oncologic:ab,ti OR chemotherapy:ab,ti OR chemotherapies:ab,ti OR ‘neoadjuvant therapy’:ab,ti OR ‘neoadjuvant therapies’:ab,ti OR chemoradiotherapy:ab,ti OR chemoradiotherapies:ab,ti OR radioimmunotherapy:ab,ti OR radiotherapy:ab,ti OR radioimmunotherapies:ab,ti) NOT (infant:ab,ti OR child:ab,ti OR adolescent:ab,ti OR teenager:ab,ti OR juvenile:ab,ti OR ‘infant’/exp OR ‘child’/exp OR ‘adolescent’/exp) AND [english]/lim
- Source Scopus
- Items found 141
- 25 Mar 2024
- Search Query
(TITLE-ABS (ketamin* OR ketalar OR ketaject OR ketanest AND esketamin* OR ketamin* OR ketalar OR ketaject OR ketanest OR ketofol* OR arketamine* OR ketalar* OR spravato*) AND TITLE ABS (neoplasms OR neoplasm OR neoplasia OR neoplasias OR neoplastic OR dysplastic OR dysplasia OR dysplasias OR cancer OR cancers OR cancerous OR malignant OR malignancy OR malignancies OR metastatic OR metastasis OR metastases OR tumor OR tumors OR tumour OR tumours OR adenocarcinoma OR adenocarcinomas OR carcinoma OR carcinomas OR sarcoma OR sarcomas OR lymphoma OR lymphomas OR melanoma OR melanomas OR leukemia OR leukemias OR oncology OR oncologic OR chemotherapy OR chemotherapies OR neoadjuvant AND therapy OR neoadjuvant AND therapies OR chemoradiotherapy OR chemoradiotherapies OR radioimmunotherapy OR radiotherapy OR radioimmunotherapies) AND NOT TITLE-ABS-KEY (infant OR child OR adolescent OR juvenile OR teenager))
Appendix D. Quality Assessment Tools Used for Assessing the Quality of Included Studies
NIH Quality Assessment Tool and Ratings for the Controlled Intervention Studies
| Abd El-Rahman et al. (2017) [22] | Abd El-Rahman et al. (2018) [23] | Barton et al. (2011) [24] | Chelly et al. (2011) [25] | De Kock et al. (2001) [26] | Fallon et al. (2018) [27] | Gewandter et al. (2014) [28] | Hardy et al. (2012) [29] | Ishizuka et al. (30) | Kamal et al. (2019) [31] | Kang et al. (2020) [32] | Kollender et al. (2008) [33] | Lauretti, Gomes, et al. (1999) [34] | Lauretti, Lima, et al. (1999) [35] | Lavand’homme et al. (2005) [36] | Mahran et al. (2015) [37] | Mohamed et al. (2016) [38] | Nesher et al. (2009) [39] | Othman et al. (2016) [40] | Rakhman et al. (2011) [41] | Shah et al. (2020) [42] | |
| Was the study described as randomized, a randomized trial, a randomized clinical trial, or an RCT? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Was the method of randomization adequate (i.e., use of randomly generated assignments)? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Was the treatment allocation concealed (so that assignments could not be predicted)? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Were study participants and providers blinded to treatment group assignment? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Were the people assessing the outcomes blinded to the participants’ group assignments? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Were the groups similar at baseline on important characteristics that could affect outcomes (e.g., demographics, risk factors, co-morbid conditions)? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Was the overall drop-out rate from the study at the endpoint 20% or lower than the number allocated to treatment? | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Was the differential drop-out rate (between treatment groups) at the endpoint 15 percentage points or lower? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Was there high adherence to the intervention protocols for each treatment group? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Were other interventions avoided or similar in the groups (e.g., similar background treatments)? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Were outcomes assessed using valid and reliable measures, implemented consistently across all study participants? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Did the authors report that the sample size was sufficiently large to be able to detect a difference in the main outcome between groups with at least 80% power? | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Were outcomes reported or subgroups analyzed prespecified (i.e., identified before analyses were conducted)? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Were all randomized participants analyzed in the group to which they were originally assigned? (i.e., did they use an intention-to-treat analysis?) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Overall quality rating | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good |
| Overall quality: Good, Fair, Poor. | |||||||||||||||||||||
References
- van den Beuken-van Everdingen, M.H.J.; 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.e1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- World Health Organization. Cancer Pain Relief: With a Guide to Opioid Availability; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Quigley, C. The role of opioids in cancer pain. BMJ 2005, 331, 825–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Waldfogel, J.M.; Nesbit, S.; Cohen, S.P.; Dy, S.M. Successful Treatment of Opioid-Refractory Cancer Pain with Short-Course, Low-Dose Ketamine. J. Pain Palliat. Care Pharmacother. 2016, 30, 294–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Coveler, A.L.; Mizrahi, J.; Eastman, B.; Apisarnthanarax, S.J.; Dalal, S.; McNearney, T.; Pant, S. Pancreas Cancer-Associated Pain Management. Oncologist 2021, 26, e971–e982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ramirez, M.F.; Strang, A.; Roland, G.; Lasala, J.; Owusu-Agyemang, P. Perioperative Pain Management and Cancer Outcomes: A Narrative Review. J. Pain Res. 2023, 16, 4181–4189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Colvin, L.A. Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: Where are we now? Pain 2019, 160 (Suppl. S1), S1–S10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shen, W.-C.; Chen, J.-S.; Shao, Y.-Y.; Lee, K.-D.; Chiou, T.-J.; Sung, Y.-C.; Rau, K.-M.; Yen, C.-J.; Liao, Y.-M.; Liu, T.-C.; et al. Impact of Undertreatment of Cancer Pain with Analgesic Drugs on Patient Outcomes: A Nationwide Survey of Outpatient Cancer Patient Care in Taiwan. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2017, 54, 55–65.e51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alishahi Tabriz, A.; Turner, K.; Hong, Y.-R.; Gheytasvand, S.; Powers, B.D.; Elston Lafata, J. Trends and Characteristics of Potentially Preventable Emergency Department Visits Among Patients with Cancer in the US. JAMA Netw. Open 2023, 6, e2250423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bruera, E.; Kim, H.N. Cancer pain. JAMA 2003, 290, 2476–2479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Indelicato, R.A.; Portenoy, R.K. Opioid Rotation in the Management of Refractory Cancer Pain. J. Clin. Oncol. 2002, 20, 348–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swarm, R.A.; Paice, J.A.; Anghelescu, D.L.; Are, M.; Bruce, J.Y.; Buga, S.; Chwistek, M.; Cleeland, C.; Craig, D.; Gafford, E.; et al. Adult Cancer Pain, Version 3.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2019, 17, 977–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferraro, M.C.; Cashin, A.G.; O’Connell, N.E.; Visser, E.J.; Abdel Shaheed, C.; Wewege, M.A.; Gustin, S.M.; McAuley, J.H. Ketamine and other NMDA receptor antagonists for chronic pain. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2023, 2023, CD015373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azari, L.; Hemati, H.; Tavasolian, R.; Shahdab, S.; Tomlinson, S.M.; Bobonis Babilonia, M.; Huang, J.; Tometich, D.B.; Turner, K.; Jim, H.S.L.; et al. The efficacy and safety of ketamine for depression in patients with cancer: A systematic review. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2024, 24, 100428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Culp, C.; Kim, H.K.; Abdi, S. Ketamine Use for Cancer and Chronic Pain Management. Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 599721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zgaia, A.O.; Irimie, A.; Sandesc, D.; Vlad, C.; Lisencu, C.; Rogobete, A.; Achimas-Cadariu, P. The role of ketamine in the treatment of chronic cancer pain. Clujul Med. 2015, 88, 457–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jonkman, K.; van de Donk, T.; Dahan, A. Ketamine for cancer pain: What is the evidence? Curr. Opin. Support. Palliat. Care 2017, 11, 88–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Every-Palmer, S.; Howick, J. How evidence-based medicine is failing due to biased trials and selective publication. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2014, 20, 908–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gray, J.A.M. Evidence-Based Healthcare; Churchill Livingstone: Edinburgh, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- NIH. Study Quality Assessment Tools. 2014. Available online: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools (accessed on 5 March 2024).
- Ritchie, J.; Lewis, J. (Eds.) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Abd El-Rahman, A.M.; Mohamed, A.A.; Mohamed, S.A.; Mostafa, M.A.M. Effect of Intrathecally Administered Ketamine, Morphine, and Their Combination Added to Bupivacaine in Patients Undergoing Major Abdominal Cancer Surgery a Randomized, Double-Blind Study. Pain Med. 2018, 19, 561–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abd El-Rahman, A.M.; El Sherif, F.A. Efficacy of Postoperative Analgesia of Local Ketamine Wound Instillation Following Total Thyroidectomy: A Randomized, Double-blind, Controlled Clinical Trial. Clin. J. Pain 2018, 34, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barton, D.L.; Wos, E.J.; Qin, R.; Mattar, B.I.; Green, N.B.; Lanier, K.S.; Bearden, J.D., 3rd; Kugler, J.W.; Hoff, K.L.; Reddy, P.S.; et al. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a topical treatment for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: NCCTG trial N06CA. Support. Care Cancer 2011, 19, 833–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chelly, J.E.; Ploskanych, T.; Dai, F.; Nelson, J.B. Multimodal analgesic approach incorporating paravertebral blocks for open radical retropubic prostatectomy: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study. Can. J. Anaesth. 2011, 58, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Kock, M.; Lavand’homme, P.; Waterloos, H. ‘Balanced analgesia’ in the perioperative period: Is there a place for ketamine? Pain 2001, 92, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fallon, M.T.; Wilcock, A.; Kelly, C.A.; Paul, J.; Lewsley, L.A.; Norrie, J.; Laird, B.J.A. Oral Ketamine vs Placebo in Patients with Cancer-Related Neuropathic Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018, 4, 870–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gewandter, J.S.; Mohile, S.G.; Heckler, C.E.; Ryan, J.L.; Kirshner, J.J.; Flynn, P.J.; Hopkins, J.O.; Morrow, G.R. A phase III randomized, placebo-controlled study of topical amitriptyline and ketamine for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN): A University of Rochester CCOP study of 462 cancer survivors. Support. Care Cancer 2014, 22, 1807–1814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardy, J.; Quinn, S.; Fazekas, B.; Plummer, J.; Eckermann, S.; Agar, M.; Spruyt, O.; Rowett, D.; Currow, D.C. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy and toxicity of subcutaneous ketamine in the management of cancer pain. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30, 3611–3617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ishizuka, P.; Garcia, J.B.; Sakata, R.K.; Issy, A.M.; Mülich, S.L. Assessment of oral S+ ketamine associated with morphine for the treatment of oncologic pain. Rev. Bras. Anestesiol. 2007, 57, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Kamal, S.M.; Ahmed, B.M.; Refaat, A. Effect of ketamine–bupivacaine combination in multilevel ultrasound- assisted thoracic paravertebral block on acute and chronic post-mastectomy pain. Egypt. J. Anaesth. 2019, 35, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, C.; Cho, A.R.; Kim, K.H.; Lee, E.A.; Lee, H.J.; Kwon, J.Y.; Kim, H.; Kim, E.; Baik, J.S.; Kim, C. Effects of Intraoperative Low-Dose Ketamine on Persistent Postsurgical Pain after Breast Cancer Surgery: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Study. Pain Physician 2020, 23, 37–47. [Google Scholar]
- Kollender, Y.; Bickels, J.; Stocki, D.; Maruoani, N.; Chazan, S.; Nirkin, A.; Meller, I.; Weinbroum, A.A. Subanaesthetic ketamine spares postoperative morphine and controls pain better than standard morphine does alone in orthopaedic-oncological patients. Eur. J. Cancer 2008, 44, 954–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lauretti, G.R.; Gomes, J.M.; Reis, M.P.; Pereira, N.L. Low doses of epidural ketamine or neostigmine, but not midazolam, improve morphine analgesia in epidural terminal cancer pain therapy. J. Clin. Anesth. 1999, 11, 663–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lauretti, G.R.; Lima, I.C.; Reis, M.P.; Prado, W.A.; Pereira, N.L. Oral ketamine and transdermal nitroglycerin as analgesic adjuvants to oral morphine therapy for cancer pain management. Anesthesiology 1999, 90, 1528–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lavand’homme, P.; De Kock, M.; Waterloos, H. Intraoperative epidural analgesia combined with ketamine provides effective preventive analgesia in patients undergoing major digestive surgery. Anesthesiology 2005, 103, 813–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mahran, E.; Hassan, M.E. Comparison of pregabalin versus ketamine in postoperative pain management in breast cancer surgery. Saudi J. Anaesth. 2015, 9, 253–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mohamed, S.A.; El-Rahman, A.M.; Fares, K.M. Intrathecal Dexmedetomidine, Ketamine, and their Combination Added to Bupivacaine for Postoperative Analgesia in Major Abdominal Cancer Surgery. Pain Physician 2016, 19, E829–E839. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Nesher, N.; Ekstein, M.P.; Paz, Y.; Marouani, N.; Chazan, S.; Weinbroum, A.A. Morphine with adjuvant ketamine vs higher dose of morphine alone for immediate postthoracotomy analgesia. Chest 2009, 136, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Othman, A.H.; El-Rahman, A.M.; El Sherif, F. Efficacy and Safety of Ketamine Added to Local Anesthetic in Modified Pectoral Block for Management of Postoperative Pain in Patients Undergoing Modified Radical Mastectomy. Pain Physician 2016, 19, 485–494. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Rakhman, E.; Shmain, D.; White, I.; Ekstein, M.P.; Kollender, Y.; Chazan, S.; Dadia, S.; Bickels, J.; Amar, E.; Weinbroum, A.A. Repeated and escalating preoperative subanesthetic doses of ketamine for postoperative pain control in patients undergoing tumor resection: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Clin. Ther. 2011, 33, 863–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shah, S.B.; Chawla, R.; Pahade, A.; Mittal, A.; Bhargava, A.K.; Kumar, R. Comparison of pectoralis plane blocks with ketamine-dexmedetomidine adjuncts and opioid-based general anaesthesia in patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy. Indian. J. Anaesth. 2020, 64, 1038–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bredlau, A.L.; Thakur, R.; Korones, D.N.; Dworkin, R.H. Ketamine for pain in adults and children with cancer: A systematic review and synthesis of the literature. Pain Med. 2013, 14, 1505–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, K.W.A.; Chan, P.C.; Lo, S.H. The use of ketamine in the management of refractory cancer pain in a palliative care unit. Ann. Palliat. Med. 2020, 9, 4478–4489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, K.; Ashby, M.; Martin, P.; Pisasale, M.; Brumley, D.; Hayes, B. “Burst” ketamine for refractory cancer pain: An open-label audit of 39 patients. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2001, 22, 834–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Orhurhu, V.J.; Roberts, J.S.; Ly, N.; Cohen, S.P. Ketamine in Acute and Chronic Pain Management; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Yavi, M.; Lee, H.; Henter, I.D.; Park, L.T.; Zarate, C.A., Jr. Ketamine treatment for depression: A review. Discov. Ment. Health 2022, 2, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bates, N.; Bello, J.K.; Osazuwa-Peters, N.; Sullivan, M.D.; Scherrer, J.F. Depression and Long-Term Prescription Opioid Use and Opioid Use Disorder: Implications for Pain Management in Cancer. Curr. Treat. Options Oncol. 2022, 23, 348–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salas, J.; Scherrer, J.F.; Schneider, F.D.; Sullivan, M.D.; Bucholz, K.K.; Burroughs, T.; Copeland, L.A.; Ahmedani, B.K.; Lustman, P.J. New-onset depression following stable, slow, and rapid rate of prescription opioid dose escalation. Pain 2017, 158, 306–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scherrer, J.F.; Salas, J.; Copeland, L.A.; Stock, E.M.; Ahmedani, B.K.; Sullivan, M.D.; Burroughs, T.; Schneider, F.D.; Bucholz, K.K.; Lustman, P.J. Prescription Opioid Duration, Dose, and Increased Risk of Depression in 3 Large Patient Populations. Ann. Fam. Med. 2016, 14, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scherrer, J.F.; Svrakic, D.M.; Freedland, K.E.; Chrusciel, T.; Balasubramanian, S.; Bucholz, K.K.; Lawler, E.V.; Lustman, P.J. Prescription opioid analgesics increase the risk of depression. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2014, 29, 491–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sullivan, M.D. Depression Effects on Long-term Prescription Opioid Use, Abuse, and Addiction. Clin. J. Pain 2018, 34, 878–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lilius, T.O.; Jokinen, V.; Neuvonen, M.S.; Niemi, M.; Kalso, E.A.; Rauhala, P.V. Ketamine coadministration attenuates morphine tolerance and leads to increased brain concentrations of both drugs in the rat. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2015, 172, 2799–2813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sohnen, S.; Dowling, O.; Shore-Lesserson, L. Single dose perioperative intrathecal ketamine as an adjuvant to intrathecal bupivacaine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of adult human randomized controlled trials. J. Clin. Anesth. 2021, 73, 110331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int. J. Surgery 2021, 88, 105906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
