Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2008 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition).
Vol 26, No 15S (May 20 Supplement), 2008: 6016
© 2008 American Society of Clinical Oncology

This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pfister, D. Articles by Cassileth, B. R. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Pfister, D. Articles by Cassileth, B. R.

Abstract

Acupuncture for pain and dysfunction after neck dissection: preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

6016

Background: Standard treatments for pain/dysfunction after neck dissection (ND) for cancer often have disappointing efficacy. Acupuncture (AC) has demonstrated benefits in randomized trials for treating chronic musculoskeletal pain, including in the neck and shoulder. Uncontrolled trials suggest AC to be of potential benefit for xerostomia relief. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) were >3 months post ND and radiation; had pain/dysfunction [Constant-Murley (CM) score <70] attributed to ND. Pts were randomized to weekly AC versus usual care (eg, physical therapy, analgesia, and/or anti-inflammatory drugs, per patient preference/physician recommendation) for 4 weeks. To address both efficacy and reproducibility, standard and optional AC points were used. The primary endpoint was pain/dysfunction as measured by CM score (0–100, higher is better). The secondary endpoint of xerostomia relief was measured by the Xerostomia Inventory (XI, normalized to a 0–100 scale, lower is better). Results: 70 pts were randomized to either AC (n=34) or control (n=36). Median age: 59 years; female/male: 26/44; modified radical ND: 83%; squamous cell carcinoma: 60%. Endpoint data were incomplete in 12 pts, the most common reason being failure to complete their final assessment (6 of 12 pts, 3 on each arm). Mean baseline CM scores (AC: 41.9 versus usual care: 45.0) improved more in the AC group (difference between groups 11.0; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.9, 19.2; p=0.009). More pts responded to treatment (33% or more improvement in CM score) in the AC group (39% versus 7%, p=0.004). AC produced greater improvement in reported xerostomia (difference in XI 5.8; 95% CI 0.9, 10.7; p=0.021), a benefit that persisted even when the analysis was limited to pts with high baseline scores. Conclusion: Significant reductions in pain, dysfunction, and xerostomia were observed in pts receiving AC versus usual care. Although further study is needed, these data support the potential role of AC in addressing post-ND pain and dysfunction, as well as xerostomia. (Supported by CA098792).

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Abstract presentation from the 2008 ASCO Annual Meeting