Treatment of pain following cancer: applying neuro-immunology in rehabilitation practice

Towards precision pain medicine for pain after cancer: the Cancer Pain Phenotyping Network multidisciplinary international guidelines for pain phenotyping using nociplastic pain criteria

Pain after cancer remains underestimated and undertreated. Precision medicine is a recent concept that refers to the ability to classify patients into subgroups that differ in their susceptibility to, biology, or prognosis of a particular disease, or in their response to a specific treatment, and thus to tailor treatment to the individual patient characteristics. Applying this to pain after cancer, the ability to classify post-cancer pain into the three major pain phenotypes (i.e. nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic pain) and tailor pain treatment accordingly, is an emerging issue. This is especially relevant because available evidence suggests that nociplastic pain is present in an important subgroup of those patients experiencing post-cancer pain. The 2021 International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) clinical criteria and grading system for nociplastic pain account for the need to identify and correctly classify patients according to the pain phenotype early in their treatment. These criteria are an important step towards precision pain medicine with great potential for the field of clinical oncology. Within this framework, the Cancer Pain Phenotyping (CANPPHE) Network, an international and interdisciplinary group of oncology clinicians and researchers from seven countries, applied the 2021 IASP clinical criteria for nociplastic pain to the growing population of those experiencing post-cancer pain. A manual is provided to allow clinicians to differentiate between predominant nociceptive, neuropathic, or nociplastic pain after cancer. A seven-step diagnostic approach is presented and illustrated using cases to enhance understanding and encourage effective implementation of this approach in clinical practice.

Pain science education for children living with and beyond cancer: Challenges and research agenda

Pain in children living with and beyond cancer is understudied and undertreated. Pain science education (PSE) is a conceptual change strategy facilitating patients' understanding of the biopsychosocial aspects of pain. Preliminary studies on the adaptation of PSE interventions to adults with and beyond cancer provide a foundation for pediatric research. PSE could help childhood cancer survivors experiencing persistent pain and pain-related worry after active treatment. PSE may also help children receiving cancer treatment, providing them with a foundation of adaptive pain beliefs and cognitions, and preparing them for procedural and treatment-related pain. We direct this paper toward pediatric oncology clinicians, policy makers, and researchers working with children living with and beyond cancer. We aim to (a) identify challenges in adapting PSE for children living with and beyond cancer, (b) offer possible solutions, and (c) propose research questions to guide the implementation of PSE for children living with and beyond cancer.

The Needs and Experiences of Patients on Pain Education and the Clinical Reasoning of Physical Therapists Regarding Cancer-Related Pain. A Qualitative Study

Objective: This study offers direction for interaction between physical therapists and patients about cancer-related pain during physical training. The study may increase awareness of rehabilitation strategies for cancer-related pain during and after cancer treatment. Methods: Qualitative study, evaluating results of two qualitative studies. Data has been collected using semi-structured interviews, in which topics were discussed with patients and physical therapists. Respondents were adult patients with cancer in the Northern Netherlands with moderate to severe pain who followed physical training with a (oncologic) physical therapist. The physical therapists were respondents specialized in oncology and working with patients with cancer in a primary care setting in in the Netherlands. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Eighteen patients and fifteen physical therapists were interviewed. Data was categorized in statements regarding "patients' needs", "patients' experiences" and "clinical reasoning of the physical therapist". "Patients' needs" for education were personal and included needs for information about the cause, course and effect of pain in relation to cancer and/or medical treatment, needs for practical tools for reducing pain, needs for strategies dealing with pain in daily activities, and needs for information about additional treatment and care options. When discussing 'patients' experiences', patients mentioned that physical therapists are cautious to express their expectations of the progress of pain and to offer pain education with respect to the cause of pain, dealing with pain and limitations in daily life, exercising, posture, learning self-care and information about additional treatment and care options in cancer-related pain. Patients provided insight into their educational, mental, and social support relative to experiences with physical therapists. Additionally, when discussing the communication they experienced with physical therapists, patients used descriptors such as accessibility, empathy, trust, knowledge and eliminating uncertainties. Interviews with physical therapists regarding their clinical reasoning process in cancer-related pain described that they identified pain from anamnesis (medical history review) and performed screening and analysis for pain secondary to cancer (treatment), as type of pain and pain influencing factors. Thoughts and experiences about pain, the use of pain clinometry, the establishment of objectives and interventions for physical therapy and multidisciplinary treatment of cancer-related pain were also described. Conclusion: Patients with cancer-related pain during physical training have personal needs regarding pain education and experience that specialized oncologic physical therapists focus on patient-centered information and self-management support. Specialized oncologic physical therapists analyze pain in the anamnesis and keep in mind the origin and impact of pain for the patient during screening and treatment. Different methods of pain management are used. It is recommended that physical therapists who give physical training take the initiative to repeatedly discuss pain.

Physical activity level, exercise behavior, barriers, and preferences of patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema

PURPOSE

To identify physical activity level, exercise behavior, barriers, and preferences in female patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL).

METHODS

Patients with BCRL consulted to physical therapy to receive lymphedema treatment were included. Age, gender, body mass index matched healthy controls (HC) were included to identify differences. The transtheoretical model was used to determine exercise behavior. Physical activity level was assessed by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF). The exercise barriers and preferences of patients with BCRL were recorded using a checklist based on the previous studies.

RESULTS

A total of 48 female patients with BCRL and 38 female HC participated in the study. Physical activity level was significantly lower in patients with BCRL when compared to HC (p ˂ 0.05). However, the number of participants who engaged in regular exercise was significantly higher in patients with BCRL than HC (33.2% vs 7.9%, p ˂ 0.05). The most common exercise barriers were fatigue (64.5%), having other responsibilities (60.4%), and weather-related factors (56.2%). Majority of the participants preferred to participate in a supervised (79.1%), structured (66.6%), combined-type (77.1%), and moderate intensity (79.1%) exercise program, and they preferred to be informed at the time of the cancer diagnosis (45.8%) by a physiotherapist (66.6%). Moreover, the most preferred exercise type was walking/jogging (66.6%).

CONCLUSION

The present study showed inadequate physical activity and exercise behavior in patients with BCRL. Supportive care interventions are needed to overcome barriers for patients with BCRL. Preferences of patients and exercise enjoyment should also be taken into consideration to increase the participation in exercises.

Integrating Motivational Interviewing in Pain Neuroscience Education for People With Chronic Pain: A Practical Guide for Clinicians

Pain neuroscience education (PNE) and motivational interviewing (MI) have been widely implemented and tested in the field of chronic pain management, and both strategies have been shown to be effective in the short term (small effect sizes) for the management of chronic pain. PNE uses contemporary pain science to educate patients about the biopsychosocial nature of the chronicity of their pain experience. The goal of PNE is to optimize patients' pain beliefs/perceptions to facilitate the acquisition of adaptive pain-coping strategies. MI, on the other hand, is a patient-centered communication style for eliciting and enhancing motivation for behavior change by shifting the patient away from a state of indecision or uncertainty. Conceptually, PNE and MI appear to be complementary interventions, with complementary rather than overlapping effects; MI primarily improves cognitive and behavioral awareness and, potentially, adherence to treatment principles, whereas PNE potentially increases pain knowledge/beliefs, awareness, and willingness to explore psychological factors that are potentially associated with pain. Therefore, combining PNE with MI might lead to improved outcomes with larger and longer-lasting effect sizes. The combined use of PNE and MI in patients having chronic pain is introduced here, along with a description of how clinicians might be able to integrate PNE and MI in the treatment of patients experiencing chronic pain. Clinical trials are needed to examine whether combining PNE with MI is superior to PNE or MI alone for improving pain and quality of life in patients having chronic pain.

The Physiotherapy Intervention for Shoulder Pain in Patients Treated for Breast Cancer: Systematic Review

Pain and joint dysfunction of the upper limb following treatment for mammary carcinoma are defined as the most frequent side effects of surgery for mammary carcinoma by calculating a prevalence range in the USA that varies between 12% and 51% with regard to pain and between 1.5% and 50% for joint dysfunction. This objective of this study was to describe physiotherapy interventions that demonstrate efficacy based on the type of pain present in patients with shoulder pain who have been treated for breast cancer.

We conducted a search for relevant publications in the last 10 years (2009-2019) on the PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases. The articles obtained were selected on the basis of correlation criteria, with themes concerning shoulder pain after mammary carcinoma and physiotherapy performed to treat this pain.

Studies suggest treating musculoskeletal pain through active exercises, joint and tissue mobilization techniques, with accessory joint mobilization and neurodynamics performed by experienced physiotherapists. In order to treat radio-induced and drug-induced neuropathic pain, both aerobic and strengthening exercises are supervised by an experienced physiotherapist and carried out twice weekly for a total of 150 minutes of exercise. Finally, the treatment suggested to deal with chronic pain uses a multidisciplinary approach, including pain education interventions, pharmacological interventions, psychological interventions, and physiotherapy interventions.

To conclude. the classification of different types of shoulder pain following mammary carcinoma treatments requires specific and targeted physiotherapy interventions in which active therapeutic exercise has a central role.

Lifestyle and Chronic Pain across the Lifespan: An Inconvenient Truth?

Chronic pain has a tremendous personal and socioeconomic impact and remains difficult to treat. Therefore, it is important to provide an update on the current understanding regarding lifestyle factors in people with chronic pain across the lifespan. Lifestyle factors such as physical (in)activity, sedentary behavior, stress, poor sleep, unhealthy diet, and smoking are associated with chronic pain severity and sustainment. This applies to all age categories, that is, chronic pain across the lifespan. Yet current treatment options often do not or only partly address the many lifestyle factors associated with chronic pain or attempt to address them in a standard format rather than providing an individually tailored multimodal lifestyle intervention. The evidence regarding lifestyle factors is available in adults, but limited in children and older adults having chronic pain, providing important avenues for future research. In conclusion, it is proposed that treatment approaches for people with chronic pain should address all relevant lifestyle factors concomitantly in an individually-tailored multimodal intervention. Ultimately, this should lead to improved outcomes and decrease the psychological and socioeconomic burden of chronic pain. Level of Evidence: IV.

Explaining pain following cancer: a practical guide for clinicians

BACKGROUND

Pain is one of the most prevalent and debilitating symptom following cancer treatment.

OBJECTIVES

This paper entails a practical guide for clinicians willing to apply pain neuroscience education (PNE) in this specific population, or clinical researchers willing to examine the effects of PNE in patients suffering from pain following cancer.

RESULTS

Patient-specific information (i.e. beliefs, cognitions, pain memories, social factors) as well as identification of the dominant pain mechanism are needed to tailor the education to the specific needs and beliefs of the patient. Therapists require an in-depth understanding of pain mechanisms, the skills to explain to their patients various pain mechanisms, specific communication skills (e.g. Socratic-style dialogof education) and experience with current evidence-based biopsychosocially-driven pain management strategies for successful implementation of PNE in the clinic. Rather than purely focusing on the biomedical characteristics of pain following cancer (e.g., tissue damage due to past cancer treatment), PNE implies teaching patients about the underlying biopsychosocial mechanisms of pain. Its application is backed-up by mounting evidence supporting the effectiveness of PNE in non-cancer pain populations, and a pilot study in patients having pain following cancer.

CONCLUSION

PNE is a potential solution to improve pain outcome in cancer survivors. Further research using sufficiently powered and well-designed randomized clinical trials should be conducted to examine the potential of PNE in patients having pain following cancer.

Best-Evidence Rehabilitation for Chronic Pain Part 2: Pain during and after Cancer Treatment

Pain during, and especially after, cancer remains underestimated and undertreated. Moreover, both patients and health care providers are not aware of potential benefits of rehabilitation strategies for the management of pain during and following cancer treatment. In this paper, we firstly provided a state-of-the-art overview of the best evidence rehabilitation modalities for patients having (persistent) pain during and following cancer treatment, including educational interventions, specific exercise therapies, manual therapies, general exercise therapies and mind-body exercise therapies. Secondly, the findings were summarized from a clinical perspective and discussed from a scientific perspective. In conclusion, best evidence suggests that general exercise therapy has small pain-relieving effects. Supporting evidence for mind-body exercise therapy is available only in breast cancer patients. At this moment, there is a lack of high-quality evidence to support the use of specific exercises and manual therapy at the affected region for pain relief during and after cancer treatment. No clinically relevant results were found in favor of educational interventions restricted to a biomedical approach of pain. To increase available evidence these rehabilitation modalities should be applied according to, and within, a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial pain management approach. Larger, well-designed clinical trials tailored to the origin of pain and with proper evaluation of pain-related functioning and the patient’s pain experience are needed.

Pain Education for Adolescents and Young Adults Living Beyond Cancer: An Interdisciplinary Meeting Report

Pain is an understudied and undertreated consequence of cancer survival. Pain education is now a recommended treatment approach for persistent non-cancer pain, yet it has not been well applied to the context of adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer survival. In March 2018, an interdisciplinary meeting was held in Adelaide, South Australia to set a research agenda for pain education in AYA cancer survivors. We identified that AYAs with persistent pain and those with heightened pain-related fear have the potential to benefit from pain education. We identified a number of unique challenges of engaging AYA survivors in pain education, and point towards future research directions.

EduCan trial: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial on the effectiveness of pain neuroscience education after breast cancer surgery on pain, physical, emotional and work-related functioning

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decades, awareness on the importance of educational interventions in cancer pain management has increased. However, education is often restricted to biomedical pain management instructions. A more modern educational approach, also known as pain neuroscience education (PNE), explains pain from a biopsychosocial perspective. We hypothesise that this more comprehensive educational approach in the early treatment phase of breast cancer will lead to more beneficial effects for cancer pain management. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to investigate the effectiveness of this PNE intervention, in addition to best evidence physical therapy modalities for treatment and prevention of pain, physical, emotional and work-related functioning after breast cancer surgery, compared with a traditional biomedical educational intervention.

METHODS

A double-blinded randomised controlled trial has been started in November 2017 at the University Hospitals of Leuven. Immediately after breast cancer surgery, all participants (n=184) receive a 12-week intensive standard physical therapy programme. They receive three additional refresher sessions at 6, 8 and 12 months postsurgery. In addition, participants receive three educational sessions during the first-month postsurgery and three 'booster sessions' at 6, 8 and 12 months postsurgery. In the intervention group, the content of the education sessions is based on the modern PNE approach. Whereas in the control group, the education is based on the traditional biomedical approach. The primary outcome parameter is pain-related disability 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes related to other dimensions of pain, physical, emotional and work-related functioning at 1-week, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 18 months postsurgery.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. This protocol has been approved by the ethical committee of the University Hospitals of Leuven. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed scientific journals and presentations at congresses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03351075.

Effectiveness of Botulinum Toxin A for Persistent Upper Limb Pain After Breast Cancer Treatment: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of a single botulinum toxin A (BTX-A) infiltration in the pectoralis major muscle in addition to a standard physical therapy program for treatment of persistent upper limb pain in breast cancer survivors.

DESIGN

Double-blinded (patient and assessor) randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

A university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Breast cancer patients (N=50) with pain.

INTERVENTION

The intervention group received a single BTX-A infiltration. The control group received a placebo (saline) infiltration. Within 1 week after the infiltration, all patients attended an individual physical therapy program (12 sessions) during the first 3 months and a home exercise program up to 6 months after infiltration.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was change in pain intensity at the upper limb (visual analog scale, 0-100) after 3 months. Secondary outcomes were prevalence rate of pain, pressure hypersensitivity, pain quality, shoulder function, and quality of life. Measures were taken before the intervention and at 1, 3, and 6 months' follow-up.

RESULTS

No significant difference in change in pain intensity after 3 months was found (mean difference in change, 3/100; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13 to 19). From baseline up to 6 months, a significantly different change in upper limb pain intensity was found between groups in favor of the intervention group (mean difference in change, 16/100; 95% CI, 1-31).

CONCLUSIONS

A single BTX-A infiltration in combination with an individual physical therapy program significantly decreased pain intensity at the upper limb in breast cancer survivors up to 6 months. However, the effect size was not clinically relevant, and no other beneficial effects were found.