Recently, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) released clinical criteria and a grading system for nociplastic pain affecting the musculoskeletal system. These criteria replaced the 2014 clinical criteria for predominant central sensitization (CS) pain and accounted for clinicians’ need to identify (early) and correctly classify patients having chronic pain according to the pain phenotype. Still, clinicians and researchers can become confused by the multitude of terms and the variety of clinical criteria available. Therefore, this paper aims at (1) providing an overview of what preceded the IASP criteria for nociplastic pain (‘the past’); (2) explaining the new IASP criteria for nociplastic pain in comparison with the 2014 clinical criteria for predominant CS pain (‘the present’); and (3) highlighting key areas for future implementation and research work in this area (‘the future’). It is explained that the 2021 IASP clinical criteria for nociplastic pain are in line with the 2014 clinical criteria for predominant CS pain but are more robust, comprehensive, better developed and hold more potential. Therefore, the 2021 IASP clinical criteria for nociplastic pain are important steps towards precision pain medicine, yet studies examining the clinimetric and psychometric properties of the criteria are urgently needed.

Stress has been consistently linked to negative impacts on physical and mental health. More specifically, patients with chronic pain experience stress intolerance, which is an exacerbation or occurrence of symptoms in response to any type of stress. The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying this phenomenon remain unsolved. In this state-of-the-art paper, we summarised the role of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) and hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, the two major stress response systems in stress intolerance. We provided insights into such mechanisms based on evidence from clinical studies in both patients with chronic pain, showing dysregulated stress systems, and healthy controls supported by preclinical studies, highlighting the link between these systems and symptoms of stress intolerance. Furthermore, we explored the possible regulating role for (epi)genetic mechanisms influencing the ANS and HPA axis. The link between stress and chronic pain has become an important area of research as it has the potential to inform the development of interventions to improve the quality of life for individuals living with chronic pain. As stress has become a prevalent concern in modern society, understanding the connection between stress, HPA axis, ANS, and chronic health conditions such as chronic pain is crucial to improve public health and well-being.

Chronic pain is the most prevalent disease worldwide, leading to substantial disability and socioeconomic burden. Therefore, it can be regarded as a public health disease and major challenge to scientists, clinicians and affected individuals. Behavioral lifestyle factors, such as, physical (in)activity, stress, poor sleep and an unhealthy diet are increasingly recognized as perpetuating factors for chronic pain. Yet, current management options for patients with chronic pain often do not address lifestyle factors in a personalized multimodal fashion. This state-of-the-art clinical perspective aims to address this gap by discussing how clinicians can simultaneously incorporate various lifestyle factors into a personalized multimodal lifestyle intervention for individuals with chronic pain. To do so the available evidence on (multimodal) lifestyle interventions targeting physical (in)activity, stress, sleep and nutritional factors, specifically, was reviewed and synthetized from a clinical point of view. First, advise is provided on how to design a personalized multimodal lifestyle approach for a specific patient. Subsequently, best-evidence recommendations on how to integrate physical (in)activity, stress, sleep and nutritional factors as treatment targets into a personalized multimodal lifestyle approach are outlined. Evidence supporting such a personalized multimodal lifestyle approach is growing, but further studies are needed.

Nociplastic pain syndromes include particular fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, headache, complex regional pain syndrome, and idiopathic orofacial pain. Several mechanisms have been proposed to account for nociplastic pain including central sensitisation, alterations of pain modulatory controls, epigenetic changes, and peripheral mechanisms. Importantly, nociplastic pain might also be present in patients with cancer pain, particularly those with pain related to complications of cancer treatment. Increased awareness of nociplastic pain associated with cancer should have important implications for monitoring and managing such patients.

This review discusses chronic pain, multiple modifiable lifestyle factors, such as stress, insomnia, diet, obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption and physical activity, and the relationship between these lifestyle factors and pain after cancer. Chronic pain is known to be a common consequence of cancer treatments, which considerably impacts cancer survivors’ quality of life when it remains untreated. Improvements in lifestyle behaviour are known to reduce mortality, comorbid conditions (i.e., cardiovascular diseases, other cancer, and recurrence) and cancer-related side-effects (i.e., fatigue and psychological issues). An inadequate stress response plays an important role in dysregulating the body’s autonomic, endocrine, and immune responses, creating a problematic back loop with pain. Next, given the high vulnerability of cancer survivors to insomnia, addressing and treating those sleep problems should be another target in pain management due to its capacity to increase hyperalgesia. Furthermore, adherence to a healthy diet holds great anti-inflammatory potential for relieving pain after cancer. Additionally, a healthy diet might go hand in hand with weight reduction in the case of obesity. Consuming alcohol and smoking have an acute analgesic effect in the short-term, with evidence lacking in the long-term. However, this acute effect is outweighed by other harms on cancer survivors’ general health. Last, informing patients about the benefits of an active lifestyle and reducing a sedentary lifestyle after cancer treatment must be emphasised when considering the proven benefits of physical activity in this population. A multimodal approach addressing all relevant lifestyle factors together seems appropriate for managing comorbid conditions, side-effects, and chronic pain after cancer. Further research is needed to evaluate whether modifiable lifestyle factors have a beneficial influence on chronic pain among cancer survivors.

Although the prevalence of cancer pain is 47% after treatment, cancer pain is often underestimated, and many patients are undertreated. The complexity of cancer pain contributes to the lack of its management. Recently, as the mechanism of cancer pain, it has become clear that central sensitization (CS) influences chronic pain conditions and the transition from acute to chronic pain. In this state-of-the-art review, we summarized the association of CS or central sensitivity syndrome with pain and the treatment for pain targeting CS in cancer survivors. The management of patients with CS should not only focus on tissue damage in either the affected body regions or within the central nervous system; rather, it should aim to target the underlying factors that sustain the CS process. Pain neuroscience education (PNE) is gaining popularity for managing chronic musculoskeletal pain and could be effective for pain and CS in breast cancer survivors. However, there is a study that did not demonstrate significant improvements after PNE, so further research is needed. Precision medicine involves the classification of patients into subgroups based on a multifaceted evaluation of disease and the implementation of treatment tailored to the characteristics of each patient, which may play a central role in the treatment of CS.