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, whileStep 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.

No abstract

Too often, in clinical settings, the diagnosis and evolution of lymphedema is determined by limb circumference measurements and/or volume calculations. Besides the unrecognition of small lymphedemas, these techniques provide little to no information concerning the stage of the lymphedema. This latter is important in choosing appropriate treatment modalities and making an accurate prognosis. Different imaging techniques are described in literature giving insights in tissue changes due to lymphedema. The aim of this article is giving an overview of possible texture changes linked to the different edema stages, visualized with noninvasive imaging procedures like ultrasonography, computed tomography, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, or magnetic resonance imaging.

Postmastectomy edema is a current complication after axillary lymph node dissection in cases of breast cancer treatment. Staging is important in order to select those patients who can benefit from complex physical therapy (CPT). Different imaging techniques can be used to evaluate the edema. Ultrasonography (US) is a harmless, cheap, and easily applicable technique to visualize the dermal and subcutaneous tissue, but interpretation of the obtained images is not always evident. The aim of this study was to compare ultrasound images of irreversible edema with tissue histology, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). Ultrasonographic images of the edematous dermis show an homogeneous hypoechogenic dermal layer that appears on tissue histology to be less compact, due to the excess of fluid in the interstitium separating the collagen fibres and making it more transparent on light microscopy. MRI of the dermis gives a hyperintense signal, indicating the presence of fluid. In the subcutis, increase of the adipose tissue could be observed on US, MRI, and tissue histology. In the case of lymphedema, the area and perimeter of fat cells is significantly (p < 0.05) increased. Hypoechogenic areas near the muscle fascia are registered on US corresponding with epifascial fluid on MRI, and hyperechogenic branches are embedded within the adipose tissue, on tissue histology seen as large fibrotic septa enclosing adipose cells. MRI has a honeycomb picture corresponding with fluid bound to fibrosis.

No abstract