Quantitative Sensory Testing in Women After Surgery for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: Quantitative sensory testing (QST) is a noninvasive technique to evaluate functioning of the somatosensory system. In many women surgically treated for breast cancer (BC), somatosensory functioning is disturbed with high prevalence of sensory loss and/or pain. The aims of this systematic review were (1) to summarize literature about QST methods; (2) to summarize the results within women surgically treated for BC (patients and survivors); (3) to compare QST results between women surgically treated for BC with and without pain; and (4) to compare the results between women surgically treated for BC and women without history of BC. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted up to February 2020. Included studies had to report on QST methods (mechanical or thermal detection-pain thresholds, pressure pain thresholds [PPT], temporal summation [TS], or conditioned pain modulation [CPM]) in women over 18 years with-without pain, who had undergone unilateral surgery for BC. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were included. Discrepancies in QST methods were greatest for TS and CPM. A local disturbance in thermal detection and an increased pain facilitation were found in BC survivors with pain in the surgical area. BC survivors with upper limb pain had significantly lower PPT at the surgical area and PPT were also significantly lower compared with women without history of BC, at affected and nonaffected sides for both local and remote body regions. DISCUSSION: Standardized QST incorporating assessments of CPM is warranted in order to draw conclusions about neurobiological mechanisms of pain and somatosensory disturbances after surgical treatment for BC and to enhance mechanism-based management of these sequelae.

Reliability and validity of a Dutch Lymphoedema Questionnaire: Cross-cultural validation of the Norman Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE: To perform the cross-cultural validation process of the Dutch Norman Questionnaire (NQ), a questionnaire for the detection and characterisation of breast-cancer related lymphoedema (BCRL) using self-reported signs and symptoms. METHODS: Test-retest reliability and construct (including convergent, divergent and known-groups validity), face and content validity were examined in breast cancer patients with (n = 30) and without (n = 30) lymphoedema. For concurrent validity, first, agreement between the diagnostic item of the NQ and a clinical diagnosis were analysed. Second, correlations between NQ scores and clinical arm volume assessment were tested. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was found to be strong to very strong (ICC 0.79-0.96) in the lymphoedema group and moderate to very strong ( ICC 0.64-0.99) in the non-lymphoedema group. Seventeen out of 20 hypotheses on convergent and divergent validity were accepted. There was good face, content and known-groups validity as well. For concurrent validity, agreement between evaluation methods was only 0.462. Moderate correlations were found between 6 out of 9 symptom scores (r = 0.422-0.630) of the NQ and clinical assessment. CONCLUSION: The Dutch NQ is a reliable and valid questionnaire for the characterisation of BCRL using self-reported signs and symptoms. Only moderate agreement for the detection of BCRL was found.

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.

Reliability of the MoistureMeterD Compact Device and the Pitting Test to Evaluate Local Tissue Water in Subjects with Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema.

Background: Local tissue water in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) can be assessed by measurement of the tissue dielectric constant using the MoistureMeterD Compact® (MMDC) device, or by performing the pitting test. Although these assessment methods are commonly used in clinical practice, literature shows a lack of research on their clinimetric properties. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate reliability of both methods, in assessing the upper limb in BCRL. Methods and Results: Thirty women with BCRL were enrolled. Local tissue water was evaluated at nine reference points on the upper limb and trunk, using both methods. To determine intra- and inter-rater reliability of the MMDC device (using the absolute percentages of water content [PWC%] and interarm PWC% ratios based on single and multiple measures), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and standard errors of the measurement were calculated. To determine intra- and inter-rater agreement of the pitting test, Cohen's kappa coefficients were calculated as well as percentages of agreement. MMDC measurements yielded moderate to very strong intra- (ICC 0.648-0.947) and inter-rater (ICC 0.606-0.941) reliability, depending on the measurement location on the edematous limb. The pitting test showed a very strong intrarater agreement at nearly all defined points, but a weak inter-rater agreement, especially at the medial elbow and the breast. Conclusion: This study supports the MMDC device and pitting test as being useful tools in the clinical evaluation of BCRL. However, further research into the concurrent validity of both tools is warranted.

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.