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.

TomoBreast is a unicenter, non-blinded randomized trial comparing conventional radiotherapy (CR) vs. hypofractionated Tomotherapy (TT) for post-operative treatment of breast cancer. The purpose of the trial is to compare whether TT can reduce heart and pulmonary toxicity. We evaluate early toxicities. The trial started inclusion in May 2007 and reached its recruitment in August 2011. Women with stage T1-3N0M0 or T1-2N1M0 breast cancer completely resected by tumorectomy (BCS) or by mastectomy (MA) who consented to participate were randomized, according to a prescribed computer-generated randomization schedule, between control arm of CR 25x2 Gy/5 weeks by tangential fields on breast/chest wall, plus supraclavicular-axillary field if node-positive, and sequential boost 8x2 Gy/2 weeks if BCS (cumulative dose 66 Gy/7 weeks), versus experimental TT arm of 15x2.8 Gy/3 weeks, including nodal areas if node-positive and simultaneous integrated boost of 0.6 Gy if BCS (cumulative dose 51 Gy/3 weeks). Outcomes evaluated were the pulmonary and heart function. Comparison of proportions used one-sided Fisher's exact test. By May 2010, 70 patients were randomized and had more than 1 year of follow-up. Out of 69 evaluable cases, 32 were assigned to CR (21 BCS, 11 MA), 37 to TT (20 BCS, 17 MA). Skin toxicity of grade ≥1 at 2 years was 60% in CR, vs. 30% in TT arm. Heart function showed no significant difference for left ventricular ejection fraction at 2 years, CR 4.8% vs. TT 4.6%. Pulmonary function tests at 2 years showed grade ≥1 decline of FEV1 in 21% of CR, vs. 15% of TT and decline of DLco in 29% of CR, vs. 7% of TT (P = 0.05). There were no unexpected severe toxicities. Short course radiotherapy of the breast with simultaneous integrated boost over 3 weeks proved feasible without excess toxicities. Pulmonary tests showed a slight trend in favor of Tomotherapy, which will need confirmation with longer follow-up of patients. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00459628

Background: Breast cancer–related lymphedema affects multiple aspects of patients’ daily lives. The main aim of this study was to assess the impact of vascularized lymph node transfer on the quality of life in patients with lymphedema. Methods: Between 2007 and 2012, 25 female patients with breast cancer–related lymphedema underwent vascularized lymph node transfer. In 22 cases, the patients underwent a simultaneous deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap breast reconstruction based on the superficial circumflex iliac artery. The influence on quality of life was evaluated using the Upper Limb Lymphedema-27 questionnaire, which includes physical, psychological, and social dimensions. The authors also investigated risk factors for lymphedema, such as body mass index, smoking, age, and time between start of lymphedema and vascularized lymph node transfer, and their impact on quality of life. Results: Twenty-one patients (84 percent) had an improvement of quality of life after vascularized lymph node transfer. The mean physical, psychological, and social scores were significantly improved postoperatively (p < 0.001). Risk factors for the development of lymphedema did not influence quality of life among patients with breast cancer–related lymphedema. Skin infections disappeared in 50 percent of the cases. Eleven patients (44 percent) discontinued compression therapy at a mean postoperative time interval of 29 months (range, 8 to 64 months). In the other patients (56 percent), the average frequency of compression therapy decreased from three sessions to one session per week. Conclusion: Vascularized lymph node transfer significantly improves quality of life among patients with breast cancer–related lymphedema. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.