Search

This paper discusses the growing problem of persisting pain after successful treatment of breast cancer and presents recommendations for improving pain-related outcomes for this group. We discuss the dominant treatment approach for persisting pain post-breast cancer treatment and draw contrasts with contemporary treatment approaches to persistent pain in non-cancer-related populations. We discuss modern application of the biopsychosocial model of pain and the notion of variable sensitivity within the pain system, moment by moment and over time. We present the implications of increasing sensitivity over time for treatment selection and implementation. By drawing on transformative changes in treatment approaches to persistent non-cancer-related pain, we describe the potentially powerful role that an intervention called pain science education, which is now recommended in clinical guidelines for musculoskeletal pain, may play in improving pain and disability outcomes after successful breast cancer treatment. Finally, we present several research recommendations that centre around adaptation of the content and delivery models of contemporary pain science education, to the post-breast cancer context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of pain neuroscience education compared to biomedical pain education after breast cancer surgery on (1) work status, (2) time until work resumption, and (3) change in return-to-work expectations up to 18 months post-surgery. Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to either pain neuroscience education (intervention group) or biomedical pain education (control group) in addition to a standard physical therapy program after surgery for breast cancer. The first four months following surgery, one to two physiotherapy sessions and three educational sessions were scheduled. After, two educational sessions and two physiotherapy sessions were held at six and eight months postoperatively. All outcomes were assessed at four, six, eight, 12 and 18 months postoperatively. Results: At 12 months, in the intervention group, 71% of the women returned to work compared to 53% in the control group (18% points difference, 95%CI:-0.1 to 35;p = 0.07). At 18 months, the differences decreased to 9% points, 95%CI:-26 to 7;p = 0.35). Neither time until work resumption (p = 0.46) nor change in estimation of own ability to return to work up to 18 months postoperatively (p = 0.21) significantly differed between both groups. Conclusion: No significant differences were found regarding return to work outcomes between women receiving pain neuroscience education versus biomedical pain education after breast cancer surgery. Further research is warranted to explore the potential role of pain neuroscience education in return-to-work interventions following breast cancer surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Here, we describe the development and pilot study of a personalized eHealth intervention containing a pain science education program and self-management support strategies regarding pain and pain-related functioning in female survivors of breast cancer. First, we aimed to evaluate the eHealth intervention’s acceptability, comprehensibility, and satisfaction; second, we aimed to assess its preliminary efficacy. Methods: A mixed-method study design was used. Breast cancer survivors with persistent pain were recruited. After 6 weeks of engagement with the eHealth intervention, acceptability, comprehensibility, and satisfaction were measured quantitatively with a self-constructed questionnaire and described qualitatively using focus groups. A joint display was used to present the meta-interferences between data. Efficacy was assessed via mixed effects models with repeated measures (outcomes assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks). Results: Twenty-nine women with persistent pain after breast cancer surgery participated. Overall, the eHealth program was well received and experienced as easy to use and helpful. The eHealth intervention seems useful as an adjunct to comprehensive cancer aftercare. Efficacy estimates suggested a significant improvement in pain-related functioning, physical functioning, and quality of life. Conclusion: A personalized eHealth intervention appears valuable for persistent pain management after breast cancer surgery. A large controlled clinical trial to determine effectiveness, and a full process evaluation, seems warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The latest systematic review on the prevalence of pain in cancer survivors was published 5 years ago. The current review aims to provide an extended overview on the prevalence of pain, pain mechanisms, pain characteristics, and assessment methods in cancer survivors. Methods: A systematic research was conducted on 17th of April 2020 using MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane looking at studies from 2014 to 2020. Studies had to report pain prevalence rates in cancer survivors with a solid tumor who finished curative treatment at least 3 months ago. Methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute quality appraisal tool. Characteristics of the included studies, participants and reported pain prevalence rates were extracted. The reported prevalence rates of the individual studies were pooled within a meta-analysis. Meta-regressions were performed to identify possible determinants of the pooled pain prevalence. Results: After deduplication, 7300 articles were screened, after which 38 were included in the meta-analysis. Risk of bias was rated low in 26 articles and moderate in 12 articles. The pooled pain prevalence was 47% (95%CI 39–55), with a heterogeneity of 98.99%. Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that nearly half of cancer survivors report pain after completing curative treatment at least 3 months ago. However, substantial unexplained heterogeneity warrants cautious interpretation of these results. Meta-regression using cancer type, treatment location, pain measurement, and follow-up time as a covariate could not explain influencing factors explaining the high heterogeneity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In patients managed with opioids for chronic pain, opioid-induced bowel dysfunction-specifically, opioid-induced constipation (OIC)-is a common side effect, which has a significant impact on quality of life (QoL). The most recent developments for management of OIC are opioid antagonists, including naloxone, a competitive antagonist of peripheral opioid receptors that reverses opioid-induced peripheral gastrointestinal (GI) effects. A prolonged-release formulation of naloxone is available in combination with oxycodone (OXN PR). To review the specific role of OXN PR in the management of chronic pain and OIC and its impact on QoL and healthcare costs, a review of available relevant literature was conducted. Healthcare costs can be up to ten times higher for patients with GI events than for those without. Assessment of QoL in patients with OIC is essential, and multiple tools for its evaluation are available. The Bowel Function Index (BFI), a tool that was specifically developed and validated to measure bowel function in patients with OIC, can be an indication of QoL. In patients with moderate-to-severe chronic pain, randomized trials have demonstrated that OXN PR has equal analgesic efficacy and safety, but results in improved bowel function, compared with prolonged-release oxycodone (Oxy PR) alone. In conclusion, randomized studies using the BFI, as well as real-world clinical practice observations, have demonstrated improved QoL for patients taking OXN PR. This combination should allow more patients to benefit from the analgesic efficacy of opioid therapy and should minimize the side effects of constipation that correspond to improvements in QoL and healthcare offsets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a highly prevalent, costly and disabling condition that is associated with high levels of health-care resource utilization. Over the past few decades, there has been a paradigm shift in our understanding of CLBP. Nowadays, this condition is accepted as a biopsychosocial phenomenon in which anatomical injury interplays with psychosocial factors. The considerable progress made in elucidating the aetiology of low back pain and the sharp increase in related health-care costs have not translated into a decreased prevalence of CLBP or the development of therapies with markedly improved efficacy and safety. Classic medical-technical interventions for CLBP always need to be placed in a broader therapeutic framework comprising physical, psychosocial and behavioural strategies, and must address the patient's welfare in a holistic context. A common key finding in the literature on these interventions for CLBP is their disappointing magnitude of pain reduction and gain in functionality. This Review summarizes general concepts of CLBP and focuses on evidence supporting the classic medical-technical approaches to CLBP; that is, pharmacotherapy, interventional pain management and surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]