https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3528-9751
Figures
Abstract
Introduction
Pain is one of the most persistent symptoms after cancer treatment. The central nervous system can erroneously stay in its alarm phase, altering the pain experience of patients who have cancer. Pain neuroscience education (PNE) with multimodal approaches may benefit these patients.
Objective
This protocol aims to determine the effectiveness of a PNE tool on pain, physical function and quality of life, as a supplement to a multimodal rehabilitation (MR) program in patients who had breast cancer (BC).
Methods
An 8-week double-blinded randomized controlled trial will be conducted, including 72 participants who had BC and who have persistent pain, randomized into three groups: PNE program + MR program, traditional biomedical information + MR program and control group. The PNE program will include educational content that participants will learn through a mobile app and the MR program will include a concurrent exercise program and manual therapy. The primary outcome will be the perceived pain assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale and secondary outcomes are others related to pain, physical function and quality of life. All outcomes will be evaluated at baseline, at the end of the intervention and 6 months after the end of intervention.
Discussion
The proposed study may help BC patients with persistent pain improve their pain experience, quality of life and provide for more adaptive pain-coping strategies. This protocol could propose an action guide to implement different integral approaches for the treatment of sequelae. This treatment option could be offered to this patient profile and it could be easily implemented in the healthcare systems due to its low costs.
Citation: Fernández-Gualda MÁ, Ariza-Vega P, Lozano-Lozano M, Cantarero-Villanueva I, Martín-Martín L, Castro-Martín E, et al. (2023) Persistent pain management in an oncology population through pain neuroscience education, a multimodal program: PaiNEd randomized clinical trial protocol. PLoS ONE 18(8): e0290096. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290096
Editor: Mirosława Püsküllüoğlu, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology Krakow, POLAND
Received: October 4, 2022; Accepted: June 27, 2023; Published: August 15, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Fernández-Gualda et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Deidentified research data will be made publicly available when the study is completed and published.
Funding: Yes. The study is funded by “Subvenciones para la Financiación de la Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación (I+D+I) Biomédica y en Ciencias de la Salud, Consejería de Salud y Familias”, of the Andalusian Regional Government (PI-0171-2020). The funders played no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of this study. This study received funding in January 2020 with an amount of 95341,90 €. https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/servicios/sede/tramites/oficinas-asistencia-registros/detalle/203711.html.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Despite the increasing incidence [1], more and more patients are surviving cancer due to developments in diagnosis and treatment [2]. However, survivorship does not mean to be illness-free. Persistent/chronic pain is defined as pain that persists for 3 months or longer [2]. Pain is one of the most frequent symptoms after cancer treatment. The burden of persistent pain can be overwhelming in breast cancer (BC) population which is already coping with a cancer diagnosis and treatment-related effects [3]. Moreover, incidence of persistent pain remains high, ranging between 11 to 57% in patients with BC [4].
The main therapeutic agents in cancer are chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, hormonal therapy, surgery, and radiotherapy. Chemotherapy may induce peripheral neuropathy causing neuropathic pain persisting for weeks or years post treatment [5]. Additionally, patients taking aromatase inhibitors to improve their overall survival are at risk of discontinuation during the first 12 months partly due to increased joint pain [6]. Up to 36% of survivors of BC taking aromatase inhibitors can suffer from arthralgia and joint pain [7]. Pain perceived by cancer survivors is often attributed to inflammation resulting from surgical procedures and radiation-induced fibrosis on affected tissues. In terms of shoulder function, a reduced range of motion and loss of strength related to persistent shoulder pain are common adverse effects in patients with BC [8].
Central sensitization (CS) as a new diagnosis label [9], is often accompanied by spreading pain, which extends outside the segmental area of primary nociception [10]. In some cases, after tissues have healed, the central nervous system (CNS) stays erroneously in its alarm phase [9]. This may be altering survivors’ of BC experience of pain, causing an increased responsiveness of nociceptive neurons in the CNS [10]. Apart from hyperalgesia, sensitivity can be altered to environmental stimuli such as weather, light, cold/heat, stress, food [11], and chemical stimuli (pesticides, odors) [12] in this CS context. Both peripheral and CS mechanisms have been identified in patients with BC [13].
Manual therapy may have immediate effect on cancer pain and may improve physical function [14]. Physical exercise enhances side effects derived from cancer treatment, such as fatigue, impaired physical function and pain [15]. Nevertheless, patients with persistent pain have more catastrophic thoughts and fewer adaptive coping strategies so might need a more biopsychosocial explanation of pain [16].
Educational interventions on pain management have mostly centered on traditional biomedical information (TBI), analgesics and explanations of perceived pain were based on tissue issues [17]. The recent paradigm shift in the conception of pain processing has led to pain neuroscience education (PNE) [18]. PNE consists of explaining the neurobiology and neurophysiology of pain and how pain is processed by the nervous system through the influence of stress, emotions, thoughts, sleep quality and various feelings. These biopsychosocial factors become even more important given that cancer patients must deal with a new body image, and possible sexual dysfunction [18]. Introducing PNE is important in cancer patients with persistent pain to decrease patients’ rumination about painful sensations and improve their perceived inability to control pain [19]. PNE in conjunction with other known physiotherapy interventions could ameliorate the prevention and treatment of pain related to medical treatment of cancer.
PNE has previously been used in the physiotherapy management of breast cancer patients with controversial results. Giving PNE instead of biomedical education can be more effective in reducing CS-related symptoms, pain catastrophizing, pain intensity, and pain interference [20]. However, the EduCan trial did not obtain better course of pain-related disability or pain intensity compared with biomedical pain education [21]. In addition, PNE and other physical recovery programs has no side effects [20, 22] and educational contents could be consulted on demand from any smartphone or tablet.
Some previous proposals have monitored and implemented therapeutic recommendations with mobile apps in health problems of high prevalence and high cost to our society, such as hip fractures [23] or the implementation of a recommendation system on energy balance (physical exercise and nutrition) [24] with promising success, both scientifically and socially.
The main aim is to study the short- and long-term effects of a PNE tool as a supplement to a multimodal rehabilitation (MR) program in BC patients with persistent pain upon finishing adjuvant treatment to determine its impact on pain, physical function and quality of life. Our hypothesis is that a PNE tool as a supplement to a MR program based on exercise and manual therapy techniques, will be more effective in improving persistent pain in cancer patients than an MR program combined with TBI. This will be compared to a control group.
Methods
Design
The protocol has been developed following the recommendations of the SPIRIT checklist. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Junta de Andalucía (2205-N-20) in concordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The PaiNEd trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. ID: NCT04877860. A parallel three-arm superiority randomized controlled trial with assessors and data analyzers blinded to the interventions will be performed. Patients will be assessed at three different times, following the recommendations of the SPIRIT checklist and diagram (Fig 1): baseline (t0), at the end of the 8-week intervention (t1) and 6 months after the end of the intervention (t2). Assessments will be performed in 1 session of approximately 2 hours or two different sessions of 1 hour each.
AROM: Active range of motion; CS: Central sensitization; DNF: Deep neck flexor; MR: Multimodal rehabilitation; PNE: Pain neuroscience education; TBI: Traditional biomedical information.
Participants will be randomized into three arms (Fig 2). It will take about 2 years to collect and analyze all data. Participants will be recruited from the radiotherapy and oncology services of the "San Cecilio" University Hospital and the "Virgen de las Nieves" University Hospital, Granada, Spain. Interventions will take place at the CUIDATE unit (http://csaludable.ugr.es/pages/dossierultimo/%21), a cancer rehabilitation research unit of the Mixed University Sport and Health Institute, University of Granada.
The inclusion and exclusion criteria for eligible participants of the study are detailed in Table 1.
Randomization and blinding
Upon completion of the recruitment process, participants will be randomized (ratio 1:1) into each of the groups using a random number generation program (EPIDAT 4.2, Xunta de Galicia, Spain). Assessors and data analyzers will be blinded to the randomization of the participants. The blinding of assessors will be guaranteed by the fact that some members of the research group will perform first assessments and others will perform the post-treatment and follow-up assessments.
Calculation of the sample size
The estimation of the sample size and statistical power for the trial were determined based on the main variable, pain measured through the VAS. Based on a previous study [26] and estimating that patients in the intervention group would have a difference of 15 mm or more in the VAS compared to the control group, differences of at least 5% can be detected with a statistical power of 90% and a significance level alpha α of 0.05. This will require a sample of 24 patients per group, which will result in a total of 72 participants. Therefore, a maximum monitoring loss of 20% will be allowed. To carry out this sample calculation, the G*Power v. 3.1 Software was used.
Intervention
The PaiNEd study will consist of 24 sessions lasting 8 weeks. The first intervention group will receive the PNE program and MR program. The second group will receive the MR program and TBI, provided in a pamphlet, on the management of pain and disability associated with side effects of cancer treatment. Finally, a control group will receive only the leaflet given to the second group.
First arm: PNE program + MR program. (PNE + MR).
For 8 weeks, patients will attend 60 minutes of supervised exercise and one manual therapy session with a duration of 30 minutes every 2 weeks.
Second arm: TBI + MR program (TBI+MR).
This intervention group will attend the same multimodal group as the previous one, but without access to the PNE intervention and receiving TBI in a leaflet format.
Third arm: Control group.
This group will only receive TBI on the management of pain and disability associated with side effects of cancer treatment handed in a leaflet format. Once the measures are registered, they will be invited to participate in the multimodal program for ethical and moral reasons.
PNE program.
This modern PNE program is tailored to the pain needs of survivors of cancer, and the educational content is based on the book “Explain Pain” [18], the Pain In Motion website (http://www.paininmotion.be) and ‘The Pain Toolkit’ [27]. Participants will acquire PNE contents at home during the first two weeks [28] of the MR program. PNE sessions will be delivered to the patients through the PaiNEd app, developed by the BIO277, CUIDATE research group. The app will display lessons following this order (Fig 3), lasting 20 minutes each one. Participants will need a mobile device or tablet with an internet connection and Android or iOS operating systems. They will have access to the app to learn and review the educational contents at home on demand (in video and infographic format).
Multimodal rehabilitation program.
The MR program features supervised exercise and manual therapy. It will be fully supervised by a physiotherapist who specializes in the implementation of exercise programs and manual therapy in the oncological population and will be individualized to the needs and circumstances of the participants.
Exercise. Patients will receive 3 nonconsecutive sessions per week at the CUIDATE unit, and the program will last 8 weeks. An overview of the exercise program is presented in Table 2. The combined resistance and aerobic exercise program will follow the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) exercise guidelines [29]. The first and third sessions of the week will consist of 60 minutes of concurrent exercise [30], and the second session will feature 60 minutes of aerobic exercise.
Manual therapy. Participants will receive 1 manual therapy session every 2 weeks. Each session will last approximately 30 minutes. Treatment sessions will be developed based on previously published protocols that demonstrate effectiveness in treating pain and dysfunction in oncology patients [33, 34]. The current protocol will involve manual and myofascial techniques focusing on the cranio-cervical, thorax and shoulder regions, adapted to the patient´s tissue response [35].
Outcomes.
All participants will receive written and verbal informed consent and a signed copy of the consent form with the Principal Investigator’s contact details if they have more questions, previous to first assessment. Participants are informed that they can leave the study at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. Eligible participants will not suffer any potential harm in the study. There are no economic incentives for participating in the study. If significant changes regarding objectives, eligibility criteria, outcomes or interventions occur, a formal amendment to the protocol will be needed. Therefore, approval by the Ethics Committee of the Junta de Andalucía and the research team will be required. Clinical data will be taken from the electronic medical records by the participating health personnel. A questionnaire based on sociodemographic issues will be provided at the beginning of the assessment. Questionnaires are collected through the PaiNEd app.
Primary outcome (Perceived pain).
The visual analog scale (VAS), offers a subjective pain estimation. The VAS is a 100 mm straight line starting with 0 that represents “no pain” and ends with 100 representing “worst pain imaginable” [36]. The VAS has been used in multiple situations and has proven to be a reliable and appropriate tool to measure pain [36].
Secondary outcomes.
Pain catastrophizing. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) is a self-administered scale of 13 items and one of the most used tools to assess catastrophizing in the face of pain. Patients take as a reference their past painful experiences and indicate the level to which they experienced each of the 13 thoughts or feelings in a Likert scale of 5 points that goes from 0 (never) to 4 (always). A total score is obtained from the scale that reflects the level of catastrophizing in the face of the patient’s pain. It contains 3 aspects: a) rumination (constant worry and inability to inhibit thoughts related to pain); b) magnification (the exaggeration of the unpleasantness of situations of pain and expectations of negative consequences), and c) helplessness (the inability to face painful situations). The values of the instrument range between 13 and 62, indicating low scores, low catastrophizing, and high values, high catastrophizing [37]. The PCS has proven to be reliable for daily use in participants reporting chronic pain [37].
Central sensitization. The Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) is composed of two different parts. The first one consists of 25 statements, each answer is scored: 0 Never, 1 Rarely, 2 Sometimes, 3 Often, and 4 Always. So that, at most we will be able to obtain a score of 100 and a minimum of 0. The second part is a survey in which patients explain if they have been diagnosed of specific disorders. Higher CSI scores mean greater symptoms of CS. If patients obtain a score greater than or equal to 40, we will consider that they have sufficient psychometrics to be correlated with CS syndromes [38]. The CSI has shown to be a valid and reliable measure for detecting CS symptoms in survivors of BC [38].
Kinesiophobia. Kinesiophobia will be measured by an 11-item version of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK-11). Each item has 4 response options, “strongly disagree” scores 1 point, and “strongly agree” scores 4 points. The maximum possible score is 44 points and the minimum is 11 points. Greater scores mean strong fear of movement. The Spanish version showed good reliability and validity [39].
Quality of life. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Created a general quality of life questionnaire known as EORTC–C30 [40]. It is a multidimensional, self-administered questionnaire that consists of 30 questions (Likert type) that is used for all cancer patients (qlq-c30). Global quality of life, functionality (physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social functioning) and symptomatology (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea, and financial difficulties) are evaluated [41]. When analyzing the EORTC questionnaires, scores are obtained in a range from 0 to 100. On the functional items, a higher score means better functioning, and on the symptom items, a higher score turns into a greater presence of the adverse effects. The EORTC QLQ-C30 had an adequate test–retest reliability with an ICC ranging from 0.698 to 0.926 in cancer survivor patients [41].
The QLQ BR-23 module for BC [42], consist of 23 questions covering symptoms and secondary effects related to the different treatment modalities; also includes aspects such as body image, sexuality and future prospects [43]. The BR-23 module has a Cronbach’s α coefficient of 0.873 [44].
Level of physical activity. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) is one of the most used generic physical activity (PA) questionnaires [45]. The short form of IPAQ (IPAQ-SF) consists of 7 questions about the frequency, duration and intensity of PA (vigorous and moderate) performed the last 7 days, as well as walking and sitting time on a working day. Weekly PA is obtained with the calculated MET-minutes within each PA intensity level MET score (Walking = 3.3 METs, Moderate Physical Activity = 4.0 METs and Vigorous Physical Activity = 8.0 METs) [46]. The PA level is classified as ‘high’ (>1500 METs), ‘moderate’ (600–1500 METs), or ‘low’ (<600 METs). The IPAQ-SF has demonstrated acceptable validity in an adult Spanish population [47]. ICC = 0.64; (0.55–0.72) [48].
Active Range of Motion (AROM). A plastic universal goniometer with two adjustable overlapping arms is used to objectively measure the active range of motion of the shoulder joint with the patient placed in the supine position [49]. A cervical range of motion device (Performance Attainment Associates©, Spine Products, Roseville, MN, USA) is used to objectively measure the active range of motion of the cervical joints (sitting position and feet completely in contact with the floor) [50]. AROM measurements are bilaterally performed three times, and the average values are used for the study. Reliability of shoulder AROM was high in survivors of BC, with ICC values ranging from 0.66–0.97. [51]. Cervical AROM is reliable and valid for evaluating the cervical AROM (ICC range: 0.82–0.96) in patients with neck pain [52].
Functional capacity. The Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) determines the maximum distance (meters) that a person can walk in 6 minutes. The test take place in a 30-metre stretch of unimpeded walkway. Blood pressure, blood oxygen saturation and Borg’s modified Scale (0–10) of RPE are provided at the beginning and the end of the test. Heart rate is measured during the test. Patients are notified when each minute passes and standardized encouragement is given during the test [53]. The test has proven to be reliable as it obtained an ICC of 0.93 in cancer patients [54]. Minimal important difference was established between 22 m (95% CI 18–26) and 32 m (95% CI 20–42) [55].
Hand-grip strength. Grip strength is assessed with a manual dynamometer (TKK 5101 Grip-D; Takey, Tokyo, Japan) [56]. The test can be done with the patient in standing position. The elbow is fully extended, the forearm neutral for pronosupination and wrist extension between 0 and 30°. Patients are asked to squeeze the dynamometer as hard as possible. Phrases of encouragement are given to patients in order to achieve their maximum force. The test is repeated three times bilaterally to obtain the mean of each grip. ICC scores range from 0.88 to 0.96 demonstrating high reliability in survivors of HNC [57].
Deep Neck Flexor (DNF) endurance. The DNF endurance test measures the endurance of the deep flexor muscles of the neck [58]. It consists of placing the patient in supine position with the spine fully supported on the stretcher and asking him to first, to do a flexion of the upper cervical spine and to simultaneously flex the lower cervical spine. The time that the patient is able to maintain the position without losing the initial distance that separated him from the stretcher is counted. The test will stop if the participant reports pain or if he can no longer maintain the position. Reliability of DNF endurance test was moderate as ICC = 0.66 [59].
Body composition. Direct Segmental Multi-frequency Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (DSM-BIA) is used for assessing skeletal muscle mass (Kg), fat mass (%) and body weight (kg). DSM-BIA is evaluated using the In-Body 720 body composition analyzer (Biospace, Seoul, Korea), following the instructions of the user’s manual [60]. Patients will be told not to eat or drink one hour before the test. BIA appeared to have very high reliability at estimating body fat percentage in survivors of BC as ICC = 1 [61] and 0.95 at estimating muscle mass in women [62].
Inflammatory and stress response
Saliva will be collected in the morning period (09:00 to 11:30 a.m.) [63]. The salivary biomarkers Cortisol and Interleukin 6 (IL6) will be measured with a commercial luminescence immune assay (Salimetrics, State College, PA) and the Salimetrics IL-6 ELISA Kit respectively. Cortisol is modulated by chronic stress generated by the constant pain endured by the patients [64]. IL6 is the cytokine which regulates inflammatory response to physical or psychological (affective) alteration of the organism. Some precautions must be taken for its collection, as participants will be instructed to not brush their teeth for at least 30 minutes before and to avoid eating, drinking and performing PA at least 3 hours before.
Data collection and security
To enhance the retention of treatment groups, the app will show users when they come to the cancer rehabilitation research unit for assessments or multimodal treatment sessions, as well as how many weeks and sessions remain. Participants will also be notified of their assessment and treatment appointments by phone or e-mail according to their preferences.
The mobile app will be installed in each patient’s mobile and instructions about how properly use it will be given. All data will be stored in accordance with the European General Data Protection Regulation.
Only the researchers involved in the PaiNEd protocol will have physical access to all pseudoanonymized and encrypted information, with the server located at the University of Granada (Granada, Spain). This will ensure the safety of data management. Personal data will be handled in a way that they can no longer be attributed to study participants, following the principles of anonymity and confidentiality throughout the study.
Data analysis
To analyze the results, the statistical program IBM SPSS 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA.) will be used. The descriptive statistics for this study (95% confidence intervals) will use mean and standard deviation (continuous data) or frequencies and percentages (categorical data). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test will be applied to verify the normal distribution of the variables (p> 0.05). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves will be included to determine the accuracy of the tests. A t test will be used to analyze parametric variables, and a Mann–Whitney U test will be used for nonparametric variables. From the point of view of inferential statistics and to respond to the main objective of this study, an intention-to-treat analysis will be carried out. A 3x3 repeated-measures ANOVA model will be performed using time (baseline, postintervention, follow-up) as a within-subject factor and intervention (first arm, second arm, control) as a between-subjects factor. The Bonferroni test will be used for post hoc analysis. For the study on subgroups with possible differential results, cancer location, type of treatment, elevated tumor stages, age, sex will be used as possible confounding variables in a subsequent multiple regression analysis. A significance level of p value less than 0.05 (P < .05) will be considered. The intergroup effect sizes will be calculated to provide magnitude changes; the effect size will be estimated using Cohen’s d (0–0.19, negligible; 0.20–0.49, small; 0.50–0.79, moderate; ≥0.8, large).
Discussion
The current trial will determine if the application of combined PNE with an MR program presents higher efficacy in reducing pain than the application of this MR program without PNE. Previous studies have demonstrated that the combination of PNE with other therapies such as exercise or dry needling, obtains better results in kinesiophobia and pain than the sum of its parts in chronic neck pain [65, 66]. These findings in PNE are consistent with the results obtained in chronic low back pain and other chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions, in conjunction with usual physiotherapy interventions and exercise, respectively [67, 68]. However, despite these benefits, to our knowledge no intervention has tested the effects of a PNE app within a physical therapy program in a breast cancer population suffering from pain and dysfunction. Furthermore, earlier evidence shows that more research is needed to observe the effects of pain management and healthy lifestyle interventions in cancer survivors [69].
Different studies have shown the efficacy of MR programs (exercise, kinesitherapy and/or manual therapy) in health issues related to pain and dysfunction associated with medical treatment of BC [70–72] or colon cancer [73]. We therefore consider it possible that similar results could be achieved with MR programs in patients who had breast cancer and present with persistent pain. A recent study has piloted the effectiveness of a PNE session in cancer survivors, and they present preliminary but promising results [19]. It seems necessary to design and implement appropriate treatment programs for this specific population. Currently, the cancer population still faces difficulties in receiving optimal treatment programs for their illness or survivorship heaviness and support to maintain a healthy lifestyle [69].
Although participants can also have different levels of PA outside the program. It will be registered with the IPAQ-SF questionnaire and considered for analyses. Even though low adherence levels might be expected from the exercise program, supervision by the physical therapist and social interaction between participants will reinforce adherence and physical function. This could open up the possibility to participants to share their pain coping strategies and all achievements made. In addition, despite there will be participants who will not know how to use the app, they will be taught how to properly use it to benefit the most from PNE.
The proposed study may help BC patients with persistent pain improve their pain experience, quality of life and provide for more adaptive pain-coping strategies. This protocol could propose an action guide to implement different integral approaches for the treatment of sequelae. If the group that includes PNE sessions proves to be more effective in reducing pain and improving physical function and quality of life than the groups without PNE, this treatment option could be offered to this patient profile and it could be easily implemented in the healthcare systems due to its low costs. Our results will be disseminated through social media, professional conferences and international refereed journals.
We expect moderate effectiveness on pain, physical function and quality of life due to the multimodal approach and the fact that we give the PNE contents 6 months after having undergone surgery and/or have finished adjuvant treatment (radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy). Providing PNE in the early postoperative stage [21], could be a barrier in the process of reconceptualizing pain as having psychological distress and poor cognitive functions (attention and memory) are common in that period [74–76].
Results from the PaiNEd trial will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, national and international conferences focused on pain, oncology and rehabilitation. Furthermore, findings will also be available through social media of the research team. Finally, participants and other interested cancer patients will know the final results of the study.
Supporting information
S1 Checklist. SPIRIT 2013 checklist: Recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents*.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290096.s001
(PDF)
S2 Checklist. SPIRIT 2013 checklist: Recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents*.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290096.s002
(PDF)
Acknowledgments
This work is part of Miguel Ángel Fernández-Gualda’s doctoral work at the Clinical Medicine and Public Health Doctoral Studies of the University of Granada, Spain. We are grateful to the staff of American Journal Experts for their assistance with the English language.
References
- 1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71: 209–249. pmid:33538338
- 2. Casey CY, Greenberg MA, Nicassio PM, Harpin ER, Hubbard D. Transition from acute to chronic pain and disability: A model including cognitive, affective, and trauma factors. Pain. 2008;134: 69–79. pmid:17504729
- 3. Khan JS, Ladha KS, Abdallah F, Clarke H. Treating Persistent Pain After Breast Cancer Surgery. Drugs. 2020;80: 23–31. pmid:31784873
- 4. Schug SA, Bruce J. Risk stratification for the development of chronic postsurgical pain. Pain reports. 2017;2: e627. pmid:29392241
- 5. Loprinzi CL, Lacchetti C, Bleeker J, Cavaletti G, Chauhan C, Hertz DL, et al. Prevention and Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Survivors of Adult Cancers: ASCO Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38: 3325–3348. pmid:32663120
- 6. Pineda-Moncusí M, Servitja S, Tusquets I, Diez-Perez A, Rial A, Cos ML, et al. Assessment of early therapy discontinuation and health-related quality of life in breast cancer patients treated with aromatase inhibitors: B-ABLE cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;177: 53–60. pmid:31127467
- 7. Din OS, Dodwell D, Wakefield RJ, Coleman RE. Aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia in early breast cancer: what do we know and how can we find out more? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;120: 525–538. pmid:20157776
- 8. Rasmussen GHF, Madeleine P, Arroyo-Morales M, Voigt M, Kristiansen M. Pain sensitivity and shoulder function among breast cancer survivors compared to matched controls: a case-control study. J Cancer Surviv. 2021. pmid:33495914
- 9. Nijs J, Polli A, Willaert W, Malfliet A, Huysmans E, Coppieters I. Central sensitisation: another label or useful diagnosis? Drug Ther Bull. 2019;57: 60–63. pmid:30858291
- 10. Leysen L, Adriaenssens N, Nijs J, Pas R, Bilterys T, Vermeir S, et al. Chronic Pain in Breast Cancer Survivors: Nociceptive, Neuropathic, or Central Sensitization Pain? Pain Pract. 2019;19: 183–195. pmid:30269431
- 11. Geha P, DeAraujo I, Green B, Small DM. Decreased food pleasure and disrupted satiety signals in chronic low back pain. Pain. 2014;155: 712–722. pmid:24384160
- 12. Nijs J, Leysen L, Adriaenssens N, Aguilar Ferrándiz ME, Devoogdt N, Tassenoy A, et al. Pain following cancer treatment: Guidelines for the clinical classification of predominant neuropathic, nociceptive and central sensitization pain. Acta Oncol (Madr). 2016;55: 659–663. pmid:27142228
- 13. De Groef A, Meeus M, De Vrieze T, Vos L, Van Kampen M, Geraerts I, et al. Unraveling Self-Reported Signs of Central Sensitization in Breast Cancer Survivors with Upper Limb Pain: Prevalence Rate and Contributing Factors. Pain Physician. 2018;21: E247–E256. Available: www.painphysicianjournal.com pmid:29871380
- 14. Yao C, Cheng Y, Zhu Q, Lv Z, Kong L, Fang M. Clinical Evidence for the Effects of Manual Therapy on Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Wang X, editor. Evidence-Based Complement Altern Med. 2021;2021: 1–14. pmid:33628310
- 15. Boing L, Vieira M de CS, Moratelli J, Bergmann A, Guimarães AC de A. Effects of exercise on physical outcomes of breast cancer survivors receiving hormone therapy–A systematic review and meta-analysis. Maturitas. 2020;141: 71–81. pmid:33036706
- 16. Malfliet A, Leysen L, Pas R, Kuppens K, Nijs J, Van Wilgen P, et al. Modern pain neuroscience in clinical practice: applied to post-cancer, paediatric and sports-related pain. Brazilian J Phys Ther. 2017;21: 225–232. pmid:28579013
- 17. Ling C, Lui LYY, So WKW. Do educational interventions improve cancer patients’ quality of life and reduce pain intensity? Quantitative systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68: 511–520. pmid:21999358
- 18. Hungr C, Sanchez-Varela V, Bober SL. Self-Image and Sexuality Issues among Young Women with Breast Cancer: Practical Recommendations. Rev Investig Clínica. 2017;69: 807–13. pmid:28453509
- 19. Pas R, Leysen L, De Goeij W, Vossebeld L, Van Wilgen P, De Groef A, et al. Pain Neuroscience Education in cancer survivors with persistent pain: A pilot study. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2020;24: 239–244. pmid:33218517
- 20. Manfuku M, Nishigami T, Mibu A, Yamashita H, Imai R, Tanaka K, et al. Effect of perioperative pain neuroscience education in patients with post-mastectomy persistent pain: a retrospective, propensity score-matched study. Support Care Cancer. 2021;29: 5351–5359. pmid:33677717
- 21. Dams L, Van der Gucht E, Devoogdt N, Smeets A, Bernar K, Morlion B, et al. Effect of pain neuroscience education after breast cancer surgery on pain-, physical-, and emotional functioning: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial (EduCan trial). Pain. 2022;00. pmid:36637138
- 22. Ammitzbøll G, Andersen KG, Bidstrup PE, Johansen C, Lanng C, Kroman N, et al. Effect of progressive resistance training on persistent pain after axillary dissection in breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;179: 173–183. pmid:31605312
- 23. Ortiz‐Piña M, Salas‐Fariña Z, Mora‐Traverso M, Martín‐Martín L, Galiano‐Castillo N, García‐Montes I, et al. A home‐based tele‐rehabilitation protocol for patients with hip fracture called @ctivehip. Res Nurs Health. 2019;42: 29–38. pmid:30444530
- 24. Lozano-Lozano M, Cantarero-Villanueva I, Martin-Martin L, Galiano-Castillo N, Sanchez M-J, Fernández-Lao C, et al. A Mobile System to Improve Quality of Life Via Energy Balance in Breast Cancer Survivors (BENECA mHealth): Prospective Test-Retest Quasiexperimental Feasibility Study. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2019;7: e14136. pmid:31237570
- 25.
DeCherney AH, McGraw-Hill Companies. Current diagnosis & treatment: obstetrics & gynecology. [cited 27 Apr 2023]. Available: https://books.google.com/books/about/Current_Diagnosis_Treatment_Obstetrics_G.html?hl=es&id=jbV-DwAAQBAJ
- 26. De Groef A, Van Kampen M, Vervloesem N, Dieltjens E, Christiaens M-R, Neven P, et al. Effect of myofascial techniques for treatment of persistent arm pain after breast cancer treatment: randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2018;32: 451–461. pmid:28914087
- 27. Moore P., & Cole F. The pain toolkit. NHS, London,. 2008.
- 28. Bilterys T, Kregel J, Nijs J, Meeus M, Danneels L, Cagnie B, et al. Influence of education level on the effectiveness of pain neuroscience education: A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2022;57: 102494. pmid:34953290
- 29. Campbell KL, Winters-Stone KM, Wiskemann J, May AM, Schwartz AL, Courneya KS, et al. Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors: Consensus Statement from International Multidisciplinary Roundtable. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51: 2375–2390. pmid:31626055
- 30. Montaño-Rojas LS, Romero-Pérez EM, Medina-Pérez C, Reguera-García MM, de Paz JA. Resistance Training in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review of Exercise Programs. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17: 6511. pmid:32906761
- 31. Norton K, Norton L, Sadgrove D. Position statement on physical activity and exercise intensity terminology. J Sci Med Sport. 2010;13: 496–502. pmid:20005170
- 32. Rosenberg J, Hyde PN, Yancy WS, Ford KM, Champ CE. Quantity of Resistance Exercise for Breast Cancer Patients: Does the Dose Match the Objective? J Strength Cond Res. 2021;35: 1467–1476. pmid:33900267
- 33. De Groef A, Devoogdt N, Van Der Gucht E, Dams L, Bernar K, Godderis L, et al. 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. BMJ Open. 2019;9: 1–10. pmid:30612114
- 34. Serra-Añó P, Inglés M, Bou-Catalá C, Iraola-Lliso A, Espí-López GV. Effectiveness of myofascial release after breast cancer surgery in women undergoing conservative surgery and radiotherapy: a randomized controlled trial. Support Care Cancer. 2019;27: 2633–2641. pmid:30470892
- 35. Pilat A. Terapias miofasciales: Inducción miofascial Aspetos teóricos y aplicaciones clinicas. McGraw-Hill Interam. 2003; 103–111. Available: https://books.google.com/books/about/Terapias_Miofasciales_Inducción_miofasc.html?hl=es&id=X89OPQAACAAJ
- 36. Badia X, Monserrat S, Roset M, Herdman M. Feasibility, validity and test-retest reliability of scaling methods for health states: the visual analogue scale and the time trade-off. Qual Life Res. 1999;8: 303–10. pmid:10472162
- 37. Darnall BD, Sturgeon JA, Cook KF, Taub CJ, Roy A, Burns JW, et al. Development and Validation of a Daily Pain Catastrophizing Scale. J Pain. 2017;18: 1139–1149. pmid:28528981
- 38. Roldán-Jiménez C, Pajares B, Iglesias Campos M, Trinidad-Fernández M, Gutiérrez-Sánchez D, Ribelles N, et al. Structural validity and reliability of the Spanish Central Sensitization Inventory in breast cancer survivors. Pain Pract. 2021;21: 740–746. pmid:33768652
- 39. Gómez-Pérez L, López-Martínez AE, Ruiz-Párraga GT. Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Version of the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK). J pain. 2011;12: 425–35. pmid:20926355
- 40. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85: 365–376. pmid:8433390
- 41. Lundy JJ, Coons SJ, Aaronson NK. Test–Retest Reliability of an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) Version of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Patient. 2015;8: 165–170. pmid:24958466
- 42. Sprangers MA, Groenvold M, Arraras JI, Franklin J, te Velde A, Muller M, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module: First results from a three-country field study. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14: 2756–2768. pmid:8874337
- 43. Nguyen J, Popovic M, Chow E, Cella D, Beaumont JL, Chu D, et al. EORTC QLQ-BR23 and FACT-B for the assessment of quality of life in patients with breast cancer: a literature review. J Comp Eff Res. 2015;4: 157–166. pmid:25825844
- 44. Tan ML, Idris DB, Teo LW, Loh SY, Seow GC, Chia YY, et al. Validation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires in the measurement of quality of life of breast cancer patients in Singapore. Asia-Pacific J Oncol Nurs. 2014;1: 22–32. pmid:25825844
- 45. van Poppel MNM, Chinapaw MJM, Mokkink LB, van Mechelen W, Terwee CB. Physical Activity Questionnaires for Adults. Sport Med. 2010;40: 565–600. pmid:20545381
- 46. Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Herrmann SD, Meckes N, Bassett DR, Tudor-Locke C, et al. 2011 compendium of physical activities: A second update of codes and MET values. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43: 1575–1581. pmid:21681120
- 47. Román Viñas B, Ribas Barba L, Ngo J, Serra Majem L. Validación en población catalana del cuestionario internacional de actividad física. Gac Sanit. 2013;27: 254–257. pmid:23103093
- 48. Smith RD, McHugh GA, Quicke JG, Dziedzic KS, Healey EL. Comparison of reliability, construct validity and responsiveness of the IPAQ-SF and PASE in adults with osteoarthritis. Musculoskeletal Care. 2021;19: 473–483. pmid:33683799
- 49. Ortiz-Comino L, Martín-Martín L, Galiano-Castillo N, Castro-Martín E, Fernández-Gualda MÁ, Lozano-Lozano M, et al. The effects of myofascial induction therapy in survivors of head and neck cancer: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Support Care Cancer. 2023;31: 1–10. pmid:36526871
- 50. Garrett TR, Youdas JW, Madson TJ. Reliability of measuring forward head posture in a clinical setting. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1993;17: 155–160. pmid:8472080
- 51. Rasmussen GHF, Kristiansen M, Arroyo-Morales M, Voigt M, Madeleine P. Absolute and relative reliability of pain sensitivity and functional outcomes of the affected shoulder among women with pain after breast cancer treatment. PLoS One. 2020;15: 1–16. pmid:32492064
- 52. Chiu TTW, Sing K Lo. Evaluation of cervical range of motion and isometric neck muscle strength: reliability and validity. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16: 851–8. pmid:12501947
- 53. Issues S, Test MW, Equipment R, Preparation P. American Thoracic Society ATS Statement: Guidelines for the Six-Minute Walk Test. 2002;166: 111–117.
- 54. Schmidt K, Vogt L, Thiel C, Jäger E, Banzer W. Validity of the Six-Minute Walk Test in Cancer Patients. Int J Sports Med. 2013;34: 631–636. pmid:23444095
- 55. Granger CL, Holland AE, Gordon IR, Denehy L. Minimal important difference of the 6-minute walk distance in lung cancer. Chron Respir Dis. 2015;12: 146–154. pmid:25749346
- 56. Cadenas-Sanchez C, Sanchez-Delgado G, Martinez-Tellez B, Mora-Gonzalez J, Löf M, España-Romero V, et al. Reliability and Validity of Different Models of TKK Hand Dynamometers. Am J Occup Ther. 2016;70: 7004300010p1–7004300010p9. pmid:27294996
- 57. van Hinte G, Leijendekkers RA, te Molder B, Jansen L, Bol C, Merkx MAW, et al. Reproducibility of measurements on physical performance in head and neck cancer survivors; measurements on maximum mouth opening, shoulder and neck function, upper and lower body strength, level of physical mobility, and walking ability. PLoS One. 2020;15: 1–16. pmid:32881858
- 58. Harris KD, Heer DM, Roy TC, Santos DM, Whitman JM, Wainner RS. Reliability of a measurement of neck flexor muscle endurance. Phys Ther. 2005;85: 1349–1355. pmid:16305273
- 59. Domenech MA, Sizer PS, Dedrick GS, McGalliard MK, Brismee J-M. The Deep Neck Flexor Endurance Test: Normative Data Scores in Healthy Adults. PM&R. 2011;3: 105–110. pmid:21333948
- 60. BC L. Inbody 720. The precision body composition analyzer. User’s manual. 2004.
- 61. Battaglini C, Naumann F, Groff D, Shields E, Hackney AC, Peppercorn J. Comparison of Body Composition Assessment Methods in Breast Cancer Survivors. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2011;38: E283–E290. pmid:21708523
- 62. Ling CHY, de Craen AJM, Slagboom PE, Gunn DA, Stokkel MPM, Westendorp RGJ, et al. Accuracy of direct segmental multi-frequency bioimpedance analysis in the assessment of total body and segmental body composition in middle-aged adult population. Clin Nutr. 2011;30: 610–615. pmid:21555168
- 63. Rieping T, Furtado GE, Letieri RV, Chupel MU, Colado JC, Hogervorst E, et al. Effects of Different Chair-Based Exercises on Salivary Biomarkers and Functional Autonomy in Institutionalized Older Women. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2019;90: 36–45. pmid:30722757
- 64. Coppens E, Kempke S, Van Wambeke P, Claes S, Morlion B, Luyten P, et al. Cortisol and Subjective Stress Responses to Acute Psychosocial Stress in Fibromyalgia Patients and Control Participants. Psychosom Med. 2018;80: 317–326. pmid:29232329
- 65. Javdaneh N, Saeterbakken AH, Shams A, Barati AH. Pain Neuroscience Education Combined with Therapeutic Exercises Provides Added Benefit in the Treatment of Chronic Neck Pain. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18: 8848. pmid:34444594
- 66. Valiente-Castrillo P, Martín-Pintado-Zugasti A, Calvo-Lobo C, Beltran-Alacreu H, Fernández-Carnero J. Effects of pain neuroscience education and dry needling for the management of patients with chronic myofascial neck pain: a randomized clinical trial. Acupunct Med. 2021;39: 91–105. pmid:32370545
- 67. Wood L, Hendrick PA. A systematic review and meta-analysis of pain neuroscience education for chronic low back pain: Short-and long-term outcomes of pain and disability. Eur J Pain. 2019;23: 234–249. pmid:30178503
- 68. Siddall B, Ram A, Jones MD, Booth J, Perriman D, Summers SJ. Short-term impact of combining pain neuroscience education with exercise for chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain. 2022;163: e20–e30. pmid:33863860
- 69. Lahousse A, Roose E, Leysen L, Yilmaz ST, Mostaqim K, Reis F, et al. Lifestyle and Pain following Cancer: State-of-the-Art and Future Directions. J Clin Med. 2021;11: 195. pmid:35011937
- 70. Fernández-Lao C, Cantarero-Villanueva I, Fernández-de-Las-Peñas C, del Moral-Ávila R, Castro-Sánchez AM, Arroyo-Morales M. Effectiveness of a multidimensional physical therapy program on pain, pressure hypersensitivity, and trigger points in breast cancer survivors: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin J Pain. 2012;28: 113–21. pmid:21705873
- 71. Galiano-Castillo N, Cantarero-Villanueva I, Fernández-Lao C, Ariza-García A, Díaz-Rodríguez L, Del-Moral-Ávila R, et al. Telehealth system: A randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of an internet-based exercise intervention on quality of life, pain, muscle strength, and fatigue in breast cancer survivors. Cancer. 2016;122: 3166–3174. pmid:27332968
- 72. Lozano-Lozano M, Martín-Martín L, Galiano-Castillo N, Fernández-Lao C, Cantarero-Villanueva I, López-Barajas IB, et al. Mobile health and supervised rehabilitation versus mobile health alone in breast cancer survivors: Randomized controlled trial. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2020;63: 316–324. pmid:31454561
- 73. Cantarero-Villanueva I, Cuesta-Vargas AI, Lozano-Lozano M, Fernández-Lao C, Fernández-Pérez A, Galiano-Castillo N. Changes in Pain and Muscle Architecture in Colon Cancer Survivors After a Lumbopelvic Exercise Program: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Pain Med. 2017;18: 1366–1376. pmid:28340204
- 74. Kaiser J, Dietrich J, Amiri M, Rüschel I, Akbaba H, Hantke N, et al. Cognitive Performance and Psychological Distress in Breast Cancer Patients at Disease Onset. Front Psychol. 2019;10: 1–9. pmid:31803117
- 75. Hedayati E, Schedin A, Nyman H, Alinaghizadeh H, Albertsson M. The effects of breast cancer diagnosis and surgery on cognitive functions. Acta Oncol (Madr). 2011;50: 1027–1036. pmid:21554027
- 76. Reid-Arndt SA, Cox CR. Stress, coping and cognitive deficits in women after surgery for breast cancer. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2012;19: 127–137. pmid:22231422