Neurolytic Celiac Plexus Block for Pain Control in Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A major focus of palliation in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer is pain control. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the efficacy and safety of neurolytic celiac plexus blockade (NCPB) compared with standard treatment in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. METHODS: An electronic search was completed (1966 through August, 2005) for RCTs comparing NCPB versus control (standard treatment and/or sham NCPB) in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. The primary outcome was pain measured on a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included opioid usage, adverse effects, quality of life (QOL), and survival. All outcomes were assessed at 2, 4, and 8 wk. RESULTS: Five RCTs involving 302 patients (NCPB, N = 147; control, N = 155) met the inclusion criteria. Mean age was 61.0 +/- 4.3 yr. Compared with control, NCPB was associated with lower VAS scores for pain at 2, 4, and 8 wk (weighted mean difference [WMD]-0.60, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.37). Opioid usage (in mg/d oral morphine) was also reduced at 2, 4, and 8 wk (WMD -85.9, 95% CI -144.0 to -27.9). NCPB was associated with a reduction in constipation (relative risk 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.91), but not other adverse events. No differences in survival were observed. QOL could not be adequately analyzed due to differences in outcome scales among studies. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer, NCPB is associated with improved pain control, and reduced narcotic usage and constipation compared with standard treatment, albeit with minimal clinical significance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".