Kinesiophobia contributes to pain-related disability in breast cancer survivors: a cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: Pain is one of the most prevalent problems reported by breast cancer survivors. As this long-lasting complication can result in disabilities on all different domains of functioning, we aimed to clarify the contribution of different factors (pain-related factors, psychosocial factors, and fatigue) to pain-related disability in female breast cancer survivors. METHODS: Seventy women who had completed their primary breast cancer treatment were included in this cross-sectional study. The following outcome measures were evaluated as independent variables for their contribution to pain-related disability (measured by the Pain Disability Index, with a maximum score of 70): pain intensity, self-reported symptoms of central sensitization, fatigue, illness beliefs, pain catastrophizing, and kinesiophobia. At first, bi- and multivariable regression methods were conducted. Secondly, a stepwise regression analysis was performed to determine the explained variance of the PDI. RESULTS: Mean score on the PDI was 16 at 4.5 years post-surgery. Multivariable regression analysis revealed higher levels of kinesiophobia as the main contributor to pain-related disability. Ultimately, stepwise regression showed that up to 40% of variance in pain-related disability could be explained by kinesiophobia, negative perceptions related to illness consequences, and pain catastrophizing. CONCLUSION: This study shows that breast cancer survivors portray moderate self-reported pain-related disability. Kinesiophobia emerged as the main contributor to pain-related disability at this time point, which could shine a light on the improvement of treatment modalities for pain management in this population.

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.

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

AIM: Pain is the second most frequent persistent symptom following cancer treatment. This article aims at explaining how the implementation of contemporary pain neuroscience can benefit rehabilitation for adults following cancer treatment within an evidence-based perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Narrative review. RESULTS: First, pain education is an effective but underused strategy for treating cancer related pain. Second, our neuro-immunological understanding of how stress can influence pain highlights the importance of integrating stress management into the rehabilitation approach for patients having cancer-related pain. The latter is supported by studies that have examined the effectiveness of various stress management programmes in this population. Third, poor sleep is common and linked to pain in patients following cancer treatment. Sleep deprivation results in a low-grade inflammatory response and consequent increased sensitivity to pain. Cognitive behavioural therapy for sleep difficulties, stress management and exercise therapy improves sleep in patients following cancer treatment. Finally, exercise therapy is effective for decreasing pain in patients following cancer treatment, and may even decrease pain-related side effects of hormone treatments commonly used in cancer survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Neuro-immunology has increased our understanding of pain and can benefit conservative pain treatment for adults following cancer treatment. Implications for Rehabilitation Pain education is effective for improving cancer pain; implementation of contemporary pain neuroscience into the educational programme seems warranted. Various types of stress management are effective for treating patients following cancer treatment. Poor sleep is common in patients following cancer treatment, and rehabilitation specialists can address this by providing exercise therapy, sleep hygiene, and/or cognitive behavioural therapy. Exercise therapy is effective for decreasing pain in patients following cancer treatment, including the treatment of pain as a common side effect of hormone treatments for breast cancer survivors.

Pain following cancer treatment: Guidelines for the clinical classification of predominant neuropathic, nociceptive and central sensitization pain.

BACKGROUND: In addition to fatigue, pain is the most frequent persistent symptom in cancer survivors. Clear guidelines for both the diagnosis and treatment of pain in cancer survivors are lacking. Classification of pain is important as it may facilitate more specific targeting of treatment. In this paper we present an overview of nociceptive, neuropathic and central sensitization pain following cancer treatment, as well as the rationale, criteria and process for stratifying pain classification. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Recently, a clinical method for classifying any pain as either predominant central sensitization pain, neuropathic or nociceptive pain was developed, based on a large body of research evidence and international expert opinion. We, a team of 15 authors from 13 different centers, four countries and two continents have applied this classification algorithm to the cancer survivor population. RESULTS: The classification of pain following cancer treatment entails two steps: (1) examining the presence of neuropathic pain; and (2) using an algorithm for differentiating predominant nociceptive and central sensitization pain. Step 1 builds on the established criteria for neuropathic pain diagnosis, while Step 2 applies a recently developed clinical method for classifying any pain as either predominant central sensitization pain, neuropathic or nociceptive pain to the cancer survivor population. CONCLUSION: The classification criteria allow identifying central sensitization pain following cancer treatment. The recognition of central sensitization pain in practice is an important development in the integration of pain neuroscience into the clinic, and one that is relevant for people undergoing and following cancer treatment.