Purpose Nociplastic pain distinguishes individuals with pain and hypersensitivity in body regions with apparently normal tissues, without any signs of neuropathy, but with contribution of central and/or peripheral sensitization. There is a lack of literature describing nociplastic pain in the pediatric population. The objective of this study was to investigate the differences between pediatric patients with nociplastic pain compared with patients with non-nociplastic pain. Patients and Methods This study included 414 pediatric patients followed at an interdisciplinary centre for complex pain. All patients underwent an exhaustive pain assessment consisting of face-to-face interviews, validated self-report questionnaires and quantitative sensory testing. Recently established criteria for chronic nociplastic pain, and quantitative sensory testing was used to describe and stratify our cohort. Results One hundred and sixty-five patients (40%) were stratified as having possible nociplastic pain and two hundred and forty-nine (60%) patients, as non-nociplastic pain. Patients with nociplastic pain displayed pain hypersensitivity in the region of pain, more symptoms of panic and social phobia, and worse sleep quality than patients with non-nociplastic pain. The proportion of patients achieving a meaningful clinical outcome after completion of their treatment (medications, physiotherapy, psychology, nursing, social worker, and/or interventional procedures) was lower in patients with nociplastic pain (62%) than those without nociplastic pain (86%). Conclusion Our results suggest that patients who meet the criteria for nociplastic pain can be identified in a population of children and adolescents being treated in a center for complex pain. Combining screening with validated questionnaires and quantitative sensory testing facilitates the phenotyping and graded severity of patients with nociplastic pain in daily clinical practice.

The outcomes of different treatment modalities for patients aged 80 and above with locally advanced and resectable esophageal carcinoma are not well described. The aim of this study was to explore survival and perioperative outcomes among this specific group of patients. A retrospective, cohort analysis was performed on a prospectively maintained esophageal cancer database from the McGill regional upper gastroinestinal cancer network. Between 2010 and 2020, all patients ≥80 years with cT2-4a, Nany, M0 esophageal carcinoma were identified and stratified according to the treatment modality: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) or chemoradiotherapy (nCRT); definitive CRT (dCRT); upfront surgery; palliative CT/RT; or best supportive care (BSC). Of the 162 patients identified, 79 were included in this study. The median age was 83 years (80–97), most were cT3 (73%), cN- (56%), and had adenocarcinoma (62%). Treatment included: nCT/nCRT (16/79, 20%); surgery alone (19/79, 24%); dCRT (12/29, 15%); palliative RT/CT (27/79, 34%); and BSC (5/79, 6%). Neoadjuvant treatment was completed in 10/16 (63%). Of the 35/79 who underwent surgery, major complications occurred in 13/35 (37%) and 90-day mortality in 3/35 (9%). Overall survival (OS) for the cohort at 1- and 3-years was 58% and 19%. Among patients treated with nCT/nCRT, this was 94% and 46% respectively. Curative intent treatment (nCT/nCRT/upfront surgery/dCRT) had significantly increased 1- and 3- year OS compared with non-curative treatment (76%/31% vs. 34%/3.3%). Multimodal standard of care treatment is feasible and safe in select octo/nonagenarians, and may be associated with improved OS. Age alone should not bias against treatment with curative intent.

Juvenile fibromyalgia (JFM) is a condition that presents as chronic widespread musculoskeletal pain and affects children and adolescents. JFM remains a challenging diagnosis, as it is both based on subjective criteria and the pathogenesis is poorly understood. Small fiber neuropathy (SFN) is a distinct condition, which is characterized by pathology of small A-delta and C fibers, and can present similarly to JFM. Small fiber pathology is characterized by reduced intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD) on skin biopsy. Recent studies have found that as many as half of patients with JFM can demonstrate decreased IENFD, in pattern similar to SFN. This phenomenon has been referred to as small fiber pathology. The meaning of these findings was disputed; however, the current consensus remains that fibromyalgia and SFN are distinct conditions. Additionally, among patients with fibromyalgia, there are two phenotypes: those with small fiber pathology and those without. The purpose of this review was to characterize the role assessment of IENFD plays in the clinical context. We conducted a narrative review of pertinent articles pertaining to JFM, SFN and small fiber pathology in fibromyalgia. We concluded that assessment of IENFD should be completed if SFN is suspected either when a patient first presents or in patients who were previously diagnosed with fibromyalgia and SFN is later suspected. Distinguishing between JFM and SFN is important because recommended therapies differ between the two conditions. However, there is no evidence to support the use of skin biopsy to distinguish between the two discussed fibromyalgia phenotypes. More studies are needed to elucidate whether IENFD varies with morbidity and if both fibromyalgia phenotypes vary in their response to different therapeutic regimens.