Author: Jun J Mao1, Kevin T Liou1, Raymond E Baser2, Ting Bao1, Katherine S Panageas2, Sally A D Romero3, Q Susan Li1, Rollin M Gallagher4, Philip W Kantoff5
Affiliation: <sup>1</sup> Integrative Medicine Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
<sup>2</sup> Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
<sup>3</sup> Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego.
<sup>4</sup> Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
<sup>5</sup> Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Conference/Journal: JAMA Oncol
Date published: 2021 Mar 18
Other:
Special Notes: doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.0310. , Word Count: 364
Importance:
The opioid crisis creates challenges for cancer pain management. Acupuncture confers clinical benefits for chronic nonmalignant pain, but its effectiveness in cancer survivors remains uncertain.
Objective:
To determine the effectiveness of electroacupuncture or auricular acupuncture for chronic musculoskeletal pain in cancer survivors.
Design, setting, and participants:
The Personalized Electroacupuncture vs Auricular Acupuncture Comparativeness Effectiveness (PEACE) trial is a randomized clinical trial that was conducted from March 2017 to October 2019 (follow-up completed April 2020) across an urban academic cancer center and 5 suburban sites in New York and New Jersey. Study statisticians were blinded to treatment assignments. The 360 adults included in the study had a prior cancer diagnosis but no current evidence of disease, reported musculoskeletal pain for at least 3 months, and self-reported pain intensity on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain imaginable).
Interventions:
Patients were randomized 2:2:1 to electroacupuncture (n = 145), auricular acupuncture (n = 143), or usual care (n = 72). Intervention groups received 10 weekly sessions of electroacupuncture or auricular acupuncture. Ten acupuncture sessions were offered to the usual care group from weeks 12 through 24.
Main outcomes and measures:
The primary outcome was change in average pain severity score on the BPI from baseline to week 12. Using a gatekeeping multiple-comparison procedure, electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture were compared with usual care using a linear mixed model. Noninferiority of auricular acupuncture to electroacupuncture was tested if both interventions were superior to usual care.
Results:
Among 360 cancer survivors (mean [SD] age, 62.1 [12.7] years; mean [SD] baseline BPI score, 5.2 [1.7] points; 251 [69.7%] women; and 88 [24.4%] non-White), 340 (94.4%) completed the primary end point. Compared with usual care, electroacupuncture reduced pain severity by 1.9 points (97.5% CI, 1.4-2.4 points; P < .001) and auricular acupuncture reduced by 1.6 points (97.5% CI, 1.0-2.1 points; P < .001) from baseline to week 12. Noninferiority of auricular acupuncture to electroacupuncture was not demonstrated. Adverse events were mild; 15 of 143 (10.5%) patients receiving auricular acupuncture and 1 of 145 (0.7%) patients receiving electroacupuncture discontinued treatments due to adverse events (P < .001).
Conclusions and relevance:
In this randomized clinical trial among cancer survivors with chronic musculoskeletal pain, electroacupuncture and auricular acupuncture produced greater pain reduction than usual care. However, auricular acupuncture did not demonstrate noninferiority to electroacupuncture, and patients receiving it had more adverse events.
Trial registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02979574.
PMID: 33734288 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.0310