Search

Context: The prevalence of persistent pain among breast cancer survivors (BCS) is high, and it is unclear what distinguishes those with persistent pain from those without. Research suggests that differences in somatosensory function evaluated by quantitative sensory testing (QST) may be responsible., Objectives: This study aimed to describe somatosensory profiles in terms of hyper- and hypoesthesia in BCS with and without persistent pain using reference data from healthy controls. Second, QST parameters of BCS with and without pain were compared with those of healthy controls (i.e., a negative control group) and patients with fibromyalgia (i.e., a positive control group)., Methods: Participants (n = 128) were divided into four equal groups: healthy controls, BCS with persistent pain, BCS without persistent pain, and patients with fibromyalgia. Nine QST parameters were evaluated at the trunk and at a remote location. Somatosensory profiles were determined by Z-score transformation of QST data using normative data from healthy controls., Results: At the trunk, compared to healthy controls, BCS with persistent pain exhibited sensory aberrations across five out of seven QST parameters: pressure pain threshold, mechanical detection, and thermal thresholds. Pain-free BCS showed similar sensory aberrations across the four QST parameters compared to healthy controls: mechanical detection and thermal thresholds. Temporal summation and conditioned pain modulation were not significantly different between groups., Conclusion: BCS with persistent pain exert aberrations in peripheral processing of nociceptive signals, heightened facilitation of nociceptive signals, and higher psychosocial burden when compared to pain-free BCS, healthy controls, and patients with fibromyalgia., Significance: This study investigates the somatosensory function of breast cancer survivors with and without persistent pain using quantitative sensory testing and two control group (i.e., patients with fibromyalgia and healthy controls). Our results indicate somatosensory aberrations within the peripheral, but not central pathways in breast cancer survivors with persistent pain. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of the somatosensory mechanisms underlying persistent pain, which may inform future interventions to prevent the development of persistent pain, and improve treatment modalities., (© 2024 European Pain Federation ‐ EFIC ®.)

Background: Studies on the concurrent validity of clinically applicable testing protocols for conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and temporal summation of pain (TSP) in breast cancer survivors (BCS) with persistent pain are lacking., Objectives: This study investigated the concurrent validity of two bedside protocols for CPM and TSP in comparison to a respective reference protocol. The participants' preferences for bedside CPM and TSP protocols were assessed., Methods: Thirty BCS experiencing persistent pain were included in this study. Each participant underwent a reference test along with two bedside alternatives for assessing both TSP and CPM. For CPM, a cold pressor test (CPT) and blood pressure cuff (BPC) were used as conditioning stimulus. The test stimulus was elicited in parallel by pressure pain threshold after 45 and 90 s of conditioning at the lower limb. The CPM reference test consisted of parallel heat stimuli at the forearms using a two-thermode system. TSP was elicited using a von Frey monofilament (256 mN) and an algometer (98 kPa) at the affected site and opposite lower limb. The TSP reference test consisted of heat stimuli at the affected site and opposite lower limb. Participants' testing preference was examined using a purpose-designed questionnaire. Spearman's rank test examined the correlation between protocols., Results: The two bedside CPM protocols were strongly correlated ( r = 0.787-0.939, p < 0.005). A strong correlation was found between the BPC protocol and reference test using the relative effect magnitude ( r = 0.541-0.555, p < 0.005). The bedside TSP protocols were moderately correlated with each other only at the lower limb using absolute change scores ( r = 0.455, p = 0.012). No significant correlation was found between the bedside and reference TSP protocols., Conclusion: The significantly moderate to very strong correlations between the bedside protocols validate their interchangeability. Researchers and clinicians should be able to choose which bedside protocol they utilize; however, participants favored the use of a BPC and algometer for the evaluation of CPM and TSP, respectively., (© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter.)

Pain is one of the most prevalent and long-term adverse effects described by people who have undergone breast cancer surgery. Non-helpful perceptions and thoughts about pain may contribute to the transition of acute to persistent pain. Adding educational interventions to the current physical therapy program in this population may help to improve or prevent persistent pain. Pain neuroscience education (PNE) is a type of educational intervention that addresses the experience of pain in a broader sense by explaining pain not only from a biomedical perspective, but also from a psychological and social perspective. A double-blinded randomized controlled trial (EduCan trial) investigated whether PNE, in addition to a standard physiotherapy program immediately after surgery for breast cancer, was more effective on somatosensory functioning in the short (4 months postoperatively) and long term (18 months postoperatively), than providing a biomedical explanation for pain. Somatosensory functioning was evaluated using a self-reported questionnaire as well as a comprehensive quantitative sensory testing evaluation. The findings of this study revealed that adding six sessions of PNE to a standard physical therapy program (n = 184) did not result in a significantly different course of somatosensory functioning up to 18 months postoperatively as compared to biomedical pain education. These findings provide an interesting basis for future research into who should receive PNE after surgery for breast cancer (e.g., patient profiling or phenotyping) and how we can tailor it to the individual to increase its effectiveness., (© 2023 American Association for Anatomy.)

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., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

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., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Pain after breast cancer surgery is a common and disabling problem. A reliable and valid questionnaire to assess pain-related disability is the Pain Disability Index (0-70). However, properties of the Dutch version (PDI-DLV) have never been investigated in this population., Objective: To assess psychometric properties of the PDI-DLV after breast cancer surgery., Methods: For reliability, relative and absolute reliability were calculated with a one-week test-retest interval, as well as internal consistency. Moreover, content and construct validity were examined to evaluate validity., Results: One hundred twenty-three women were included. Relative reliability was good (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.80). Standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change (absolute reliability) were 5.57 and 15.45 points, respectively. The mean difference between two measurements was -1.98 points, with 95% limits of agreement equal to 13.19 and -17.15. The within-subjects coefficient of variation was 59%. Internal consistency was confirmed (α = 0.87). The PDI-DLV was scored as understandable and complete (content validity). Construct validity was supported by confirmation of more than 75% of the tested hypotheses and of the one-factor model., Conclusion: The PDI-DLV is a valid questionnaire to assess pain-related disability 1 year after breast cancer surgery. Although absolute reliability is disputable, its good relative reliability allows evaluating changes between subjects.

Abstract: Pain is one of the most common and long-lasting side effects reported by women surgically treated for breast cancer. Educational interventions may optimize the current physical therapy modalities for pain prevention or relief in this population. Pain neuroscience education (PNE) is an educational intervention that explains the pain experience not only from a biomedical perspective but also the psychological and social factors that contribute to it. Through a double-blinded randomized controlled trial (EduCan trial) it was investigated if PNE, in addition to the standard physiotherapy program immediately after breast cancer surgery, was more effective over the course of 18 months postoperatively than providing a biomedical explanation for pain. Primary outcome was the change in pain-related disability (Pain Disability Index, 0-70) over 12 months. Secondary outcomes included change in pain intensity, upper limb function, physical activity level, and emotional functioning over 4, 6, 8, 12, and 18 months postoperatively. Multivariate linear models for repeated (longitudinal) measures were used to compare changes. Preoperative and postoperative moderators of the change in pain-related disability were also explored. Of 184 participants randomized, the mean (SD) age in the PNE and biomedical education group was 55.4 (11.5) and 55.2 (11.4) years, respectively. The change in pain-related disability from baseline to 12 months postoperatively did not differ between the 2 groups (PNE 4.22 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.40-7.03], biomedical 5.53 [95% CI: 2.74-8.32], difference in change -1.31 [95% CI: -5.28 to 2.65], P = 0.516). Similar results were observed for all secondary outcomes. Future research should explore whether a more patient-tailored intervention would yield better results., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Purpose: Pain and sensory disturbances are common side effects of breast cancer treatment. Differential somatosensory functioning may reflect distinct pathophysiological backgrounds and therapeutic needs. Aim was to examine whether questionnaires evaluating signs and symptoms related to somatosensory functioning correlate sufficiently with quantitative sensory testing (QST) in breast cancer survivors to warrant consideration for somatosensory profiling in clinical practice., Methods: One year after breast cancer surgery, 147 women underwent QST and completed following questionnaires: Douleur Neuropathique en 4 questions (DN4), Central Sensitization Inventory, Margolis Pain Diagram and Visual Analog Scales (VAS). Associations between the questionnaires and QST were evaluated using Spearman correlation coefficients (rs)., Results: Significant but weak ( r s < 0.30) correlations were found between total DN4 score and QST results at the inner upper arm for detection of sharp stimuli ( r s = 0.227), cold stimuli ( r s = -0.186), and painful heat stimuli ( r s = 0.179), as well as between QST evaluating conditioned pain modulation and the Margolis Pain Diagram on one hand ( r s = 0.176) and minimum-maximum pain intensity differences (VAS) on the other ( r s = -0.170)., Conclusion: Questionnaires evaluating signs and symptoms related to somatosensory functioning are insufficient for somatosensory profiling. Although somatosensory profiling may be valuable in a mechanism-based management, more research on the most appropriate clinical tools is needed.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONClinicians should be able to recognize that patients with persistent pain or sensory disturbances following breast cancer surgery may have a component of altered somatosensory processing as a significant contributor to their complaint in order to address it appropriately.Somatosensory profiling has yet to be implemented into clinical practice.No evidence-based recommendations can be made on the use of self-reported questionnaires to assess somatosensory processing in a breast cancer population based on the findings of this study.It is suggested to combine information on how individuals process and experience somatosensory stimulation with information from the patient interview or questionnaires to consider which biological, psychological and/or social factors may drive or sustain these neurophysiological processes.

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., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)