Characterization of Central Pain Syndrome in Survivors of Head and Neck Cancer
Phase: NA
Conditions: Head and Neck Cancer
Sponsor: Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center

Central Pain in HNC 8/31/20 
1 
Characterization of Central Pain Syndrome in Survivors of 
Head and Neck Cancer   
PI: Dianne Lou, MD, PhD (Resident Physician, Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University 
Medical Center) 
Faculty Advisor: Barbara Murphy, MD (Professor, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University 
Medical Center) 
Faculty Advisor: David Edwards, MD, PhD (Assistant Professor, Department of Anesthesiology; Chief 
of Pain Division, Vanderbilt University Medical Center) 
Co-Investigators: John Gore, PhD   (Professor, Director of the Vanderbilt University Institute for 
Imaging Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center); Nancy Wells, DNSc, RN, FAAN (Center for 
Research and Scholarly Development, School of Nursing, Vanderbilt University Medical Center); 
Stephen Sonis, DMD, DMSc (Professor, Department of Oral Medicine, Harvard University, Dana 
Farber Cancer Institute, Brigham and Woman’s Hospital) 
Study Statistician: Derek Smith, DDS, PhD (Assistant Research Professor, Department of Biostatistics 
and Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center) 
Research Staff: Melanie Copeland, RMA; Phyllis Kilpatrick, LPN 
NCT04128267

Central Pain in HNC 8/31/20 
 
 
2 
Table of Contents:  
1.0 
Background 
p. 3-5 
2.0 
Study Summary and Specific Aims 
p. 5-6 
3.0 
Methods 
p. 6-9 
a. Patient Eligibility 
p. 6 
 
b. Study Procedures 
p. 7-9 
4.0 
Measures 
p. 9-11 
a. Questionnaires 
p. 9-10 
b. MRI Protocol 
p. 10-11 
c. Blood Draws 
p. 11 
5.0 
Risks 
p. 11-12 
6.0 
Reporting of Adverse Events 
p. 13 
7.0 
Study Withdrawal/Discontinuation 
p. 13 
8.0 
Privacy and Confidentiality 
p. 13 
9.0 
Records and Samples to be Kept  
p. 14 
a. Data Monitoring 
p. 14 
b. Blood Sample Storage 
p. 14 
10.0 
Statistics and Sample Size 
p. 14 
11.0 
References 
p. 15 
 
 
 

Central Pain in HNC 8/31/20 
 
 
3 
1.0  
Background:  
Over the past three decades, the survival rate of patients diagnosed with cancer has steadily increased as a 
result of advancements in cancer screening tools, multidisciplinary treatment plans, and the development of 
targeted therapies. By the year 2026, it is estimated that 20.3 million people in the United States will be 
defined as a cancer survivor - one who carries or has carried the diagnosis of cancer (1). But it is becoming 
increasingly clear that fighting cancer is only half the battle. As patient outcomes have improved and lifespans 
extended, long-term toxicities associated with therapy significantly impact quality of life after cancer.   
A particularly challenging morbidity in this patient population is the development of persistent, chronic pain. 
Interestingly, as many as 28% of survivors continue to have moderate pain six months after treatment 
completion (2). Not only is this distressing for the patient, but the continued use of opioids months or years 
after curative treatment further contributes to the burden of the ongoing national opioid epidemic (3). Opioid 
use is associated with its own deleterious side effects which include difficult access to medication, risk of 
overdose, addiction, gastrointestinal dysmotility, and obtundation. In addition, these chronic pain states are 
closely associated with the development of depression, anxiety, cognitive dysfunction, and sleep disturbances 
which are further detrimental to quality of life (4, 5). 
Head and neck (H&N) cancer patients often undergo rigorous treatments which involve chemotherapy, 
radiation, and surgery. As a result, these patients are highly susceptible to the development of acute and 
chronic pain. Initially, pain in this population can manifest as acute, well-localized nociceptive pain or 
neuropathic pain from direct nerve injury. In most cases, these types of pain can be treated with NSAIDs, 
acetaminophen, and/or opioids during treatment. However, some patients will gradually develop an 
increasing sensitivity to pain that extends beyond the course of treatment. In extreme cases, patients 
experience exaggerated pain responses to noxious stimuli (hyperalgesia), painful responses to innocuous 
stimuli (allodynia), pain in areas unaffected by cancer or its related treatments, and other systemic symptoms 
of neurological impairment such as fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and mood disturbances. In this particular 
subset of patients, the pathogenesis of this exaggerated pain phenotype is highly reminiscent of an amplified 
pain state also known as central sensitization. In the presence of a repetitive noxious stimulus, the threshold 
for pain in nociceptive receptors is lowered as a protective mechanism (primary hyperalgesia) (6). The 
exaggerated response to pain eventually returns to baseline after removal of the stimulus. However, in chronic 
pain states, overamplification of the nociceptive pathway and dysfunction of inhibitory pathways in the 
central nervous system leads to permanent pathological pain amplification, known as central sensitization. 
This manifests clinically as secondary hyperalgesia (pain outside of the site of injury), allodynia, and/or 
widespread pain (7). 
The literature regarding pain in cancer survivors is still in its infancy given the increasing number of curative 
therapies leading to longer rates of survival after treatment. What we are just now starting to realize is that 
specific pain phenotypes are unique to specific types of cancers and consequently require different types of 
pain regimens. However, lack of education and consensus definitions in the classification of pain have resulted 
in continued opioid use long after commencement of cancer treatment, leading to increased tolerance and 
escalating doses in the cancer survivor population. Perhaps the most well documented cancer pain syndrome 
is post-mastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS). The incidence of pain after breast surgery has been reported to 

Central Pain in HNC 8/31/20 
 
 
4 
be around 20-50% (8-11). This variability can be attributed to the lack of a consensus definition to describe 
PMPS (12). In addition, different types of pain are encompassed within the single definition of PMPS. Patients 
may suffer from pain overlying scar tissue, direct nerve injury, phantom breast pain, pain from impaired 
lympathic drainage, and/or musculoskeletal pain just to name a few (13). To complicate matters further, each 
of these pain phenotypes have differing underlying mechanisms which include pain induced by local 
inflammation and destruction sensed by nociceptors, neuropathic pain due direct injury to the peripheral and 
central somatosensory system, central sensitization from abnormal ascending and descending pain processing 
mechanisms, or mixed pain (14, 15). As one can image, the underlying pathogenesis of pain strongly 
determines the response to specific medications and account for treatment failure. In fact, trials that examine 
treatment effect in a population of patients without proper pain classifications may lead to negative results 
(16). Thus, cancer type specific classifications of pain and their underlying pathogenesis must be carefully 
studied in order to establish effective clinical trials for the prevention and treatment of pain in cancer 
survivors. 
Classically, central sensitization is a feature of several chronic pain states such as fibromyalgia, irritable bowel 
syndrome, and temporomandibular disorder (17). Although these conditions are seemingly heterogenous in 
nature with varying anatomical focal points of amplified pain, the syndromes themselves encompass many of 
the same systemic symptoms as described above. These central sensitivity syndromes are often difficult to 
treat because an identifiable cause or trigger remains to be elucidated. It has been speculated that genetic 
predisposition, neuro-inflammation involving both the innate and adaptive immune systems, and rewiring of 
the pain circuitry in the central nervous system are all involved (17-20). However, the natural progression of 
these disease states is difficult to follow because patients often present after the disease process is already 
well underway.  
Recently, imaging modalities have garnered much interest in identifying structural and functional changes in 
the brains of patients with central sensitivity states. In fibromyalgia patients, there is both decreased and 
increased grey matter volume and increased connectivity in brain areas responsible for the anticipation of, 
attention to, and emotional processing of pain (21-23). Resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging 
(fMRI) scans measure basal metabolic signatures during periods of “rest” that can reveal underlying 
connectivity of different areas of the brain and have been shown to be amplified in patients with central 
sensitization syndromes such as fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, irritable bowel syndrome, temporomandibular 
joint disorder patients (24). Structural alterations such as grey matter volume can also be measured using 
structural MRI measurements in areas of the brain that are associated with stress, pain, emotional processing, 
and memory development. A combination approach of quantitative sensory testing (25) along with fMRI 
imaging has been used to correlate pain thresholds with brain activity in the fibromyalgia patients (23). In 
these studies, a stimulus of increasing intensity (vibratory, thermal, or pressure) is administered in a step-wise 
fashion and changes in blood flow (and therefore activity) to specific brain regions are assessed. These types 
of studies have shown that lower pain thresholds correlate well with earlier activation of pain centers in 
patients with fibromyalgia when compared to negative controls. Although these studies have made great 
strides in unveiling the dynamic processes involved in central sensitization, the sequential events leading to 
the development of the central sensitivity syndromes are still unknown. This is because the existing literature 
only provides a snapshot of ongoing pathological pain processes since these patients present only after 

Central Pain in HNC 8/31/20 
 
 
5 
disease onset. This is supported by the conflicting structural and functional MRI data in the literature which is 
likely due to a heterogeneous patient population who may be in distinct stages of disease progression.  
Upon initial diagnosis, most H&N cancer patients present with localized nociceptive pain but the combination 
of surgical resection and radiation therapy commonly causes acute and chronic pain localized to the involved 
area of the head and neck region. What is less well recognized is that 23% of H&N cancer survivors report 
persistent moderate to severe widespread pain that may last indefinitely (21, 26). In addition, H&N cancer 
patients often present with other systemic symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and cognitive dysfunction 
that can severely affect their quality of life. Given the relatively high occurrence of what resembles a central 
sensitivity state in this patient population and the potentially trackable development of this state during the 
course of cancer treatment, the H&N cancer population provides an exceptional model system for studying 
the pathogenesis of central sensitization in real-time. 
We hypothesize that central sensitization is a key pathological process that occurs in a subset of H&N cancer 
patients who experience chronic pain beyond treatment completion. In our pilot study, we propose to 
conduct a cross-sectional study of H&N cancer survivors who have completed multimodal treatment to assess 
and characterize the presence of distinct pain phenotypes: localized, nociceptive pain versus centralized pain. 
Using structural and functional MRI, we will determine if a distinct brain signature similar to other central 
sensitivity syndromes is present and if we can distinguish central from non-central (normal, nociceptive) pain 
in this specific population. We will also document the presence of other systemic symptoms such as fatigue, 
mood disturbances, neurocognitive changes, and sleep disturbances to see if the culmination of specific 
symptoms correlates to the presence of distinct MRI signals to predict and diagnose central sensitization in 
these patients. This study will aim to answer several important questions. 1) Does central sensitization play a 
role in the pathogenesis of chronic pain in H&N cancer survivors? 2) Can we objectively and reliably measure 
nociceptive versus centralized pain in this population? 3) Does this objective brain signature correlate to the 
presence of specific subjective symptoms? 
The answers to these questions will provide us with the foundation for future studies in which we hope to 
characterize the evolution and progression of central sensitization in this unique patient population. This will 
allow us to eventually guide personalized treatment regimens for treating and preventing central pain in the 
cancer population using multimodal, non-opioid based regimens. It will also provide us with a rare opportunity 
to expand our knowledge in the pathogenesis of central sensitization that will be globally applicable to other 
centralized pain syndromes.  
 
 
2.0 
Study Summary and Specific Aims:  
 
Summary: We propose to conduct a cross-sectional pilot study of H&N cancer survivors who have completed 
multimodal treatment to assess and characterize the presence of distinct pain syndromes. We plan to screen 
patients who have completed head and neck cancer therapy using a battery of patient reported outcome 
measures (PRO’s). Based on the PRO responses, patients will be characterized as follows: 1) no pain, 2) central 
pain, and 3) nociceptive pain. Patients will then undergo structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging 

Central Pain in HNC 8/31/20 
 
 
6 
(MRI). We will correlate clinical presentation with MRI signatures to determine if distinct signatures can be 
identified for each cohort. In addition, we propose to correlate the clinical and MRI signatures for central pain 
with the presence of other systemic symptoms. Participants will be asked to fill out several questionnaires 
that capture systemic symptoms commonly associated with other central sensitivity syndromes. 
Aim 1: To correlate structural and functional MRI signature with one of three pain phenotypes in H&N cancer 
survivors: 1) no pain, 2) central pain, and 3) nociceptive pain. 
Hypothesis 1: Structural and functional MRI can identify unique signatures that correspond with pain 
phenotype.  
Aim 2: To correlate the presence of chronic systemic symptoms with pain phenotype. 
Hypothesis 2: Patients with central pain will have an increased frequency of other systemic symptoms 
(fatigue, neurocognitive dysfunction, depression, etc.) as measures on the General Symptom Survey. 
Exploratory Aim: DNA, RNA, and plasma will be collected for genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic studies. 
Results will be vertically integrated along with the results of clinical studies described within this protocol to 
identify targets for future correlative studies. 
 
3.0 
Methods:  
Patient Eligibility:  
Inclusion Criteria: 
• 
Patients with histologically proven head and neck cancer  
• 
Patients without a diagnosis of head and neck cancer (up to 10 patients, see below) 
• 
Completed multi-modality therapy a minimum of 6 weeks prior to study entry.  
• 
Willing and able to provide informed consent  
• 
All participants must be at least 21 years of age  
• 
Able to speak English 
We anticipate enrolling a total of 75 patients with a history of head and neck cancer who will complete all 
questionnaires and MRI scanning. We will also recruit up to 10 patients WITHOUT a diagnosis of head and 
neck cancer to facilitate optimization of the MRI scanning processes. This will allow us to address logistical 
issues, such as pressure stimulator setup and timing of each scan to be performed.  
Exclusion Criteria: 
• 
Patients who are pregnant. See below under “Study Procedures” section on pregnancy testing. 
• 
Patients who are unable to lie still. 
• 
Patients who are unable tolerate pressure stimulator. 
• 
Non-MRI compatible devices such as aneurysm clips, cardiac pacemakers or defibrillators, cochlear 
implants, hardware, or any other implants  
• 
Iron-based tattoos, pieces of metal (bullet, BB, shrapnel) close to or in an important organ (such as the 
eye), or other non-MRI compatible metal in the body. 

Central Pain in HNC 8/31/20 
 
 
7 
Study Procedures:  
Recruitment  
The attending physicians, nurse practitioner or nurses in the Oncology Clinic routinely review the list of 
patients presenting to clinic for follow-up visits. All patients who are a minimum of 6 weeks post treatment 
will be provided with information about the study and asked if they are interested in study participation. If 
patients express interest, trained study staff will be notified. Study staff will meet with all interested patients 
to discuss the study in more detail and answer questions. 
Informed Consent Process  
Research staff will obtain informed consent from the study participants before initiation of data collection. 
This process will take place in a quiet, private location at Vanderbilt Medical Center to ensure confidentiality. 
During the informed consent process, a copy of the IRB-approved consent from will be provided to prospective 
study participants. Research staff will review the study risks, potential benefits, and procedures to assess 
confidentiality and data de-identification. Prospective study participants will be assured that their 
participation in the study is voluntary, and that they can withdraw at any point in the study by notifying 
research staff. Participants will be provided with research staff contact information. Prospective study 
participants will be informed that refusal to participate in the study or withdrawal from the study will not 
affect their care. After verbally reviewing the informed consent documents, prospective participants will be 
allotted ample time to read the consent form or have the consent form read to them aloud. Research staff 
will verify comprehension of the informed consent process, and then ask the prospective participant if they 
wish to enroll on the study. If so, prospective study participants will be instructed to sign the IRB-approved 
consent form. In addition, research staff obtaining informed consent will sign the form. The study participant 
will then be provided with a copy of the signed consent form. The research staff will have received training in 
obtaining informed consent. 
The original signed IRB-approved consent form will be stored in a locked file drawer in the study office or 
stored in the password protected REDCap database if applicable. The informed consent document will be 
scanned into the study participant’s electronic medical record. Alternatively, we will use an electronic consent 
form that will be completed on the REDCap database.  
Pressure Stimulator Testing 
At the time of enrollment and after the informed consent has been signed, the study staff can demonstrate 
the use of the pressure stimulator (IPC-1000 (27)) in the clinic if requested by the patient. These systems are 
computer-controlled, MRI-compatible pressure stimulators that allow for remote delivery of a stimulus that 
can be used in synchronization with imaging sequences if needed. Patient pain responses can be recorded in 
real time to varying degrees of pressure inside or outside the MRI machine. The pressure stimulus is delivered 
to the thumbnail via a thumbnail pressure stimulator. Those who are unable to tolerate the pressure 
stimulator will not proceed with the study.  
On the day of the MRI scans, we will conduct two separate tests. First, we will measure the pain threshold 
(when pain is >0) and tolerance (when pain is unbearable) to a pressure stimulus as previously described in 
the literature (28). This information will be used to calculate an individualized pressure intensity for the next 
test (29, 30). Next, we will test for central sensitization using the slowly repeated evoked pain protocol. This 

Central Pain in HNC 8/31/20 
 
 
8 
test consists of delivering a five-second pressure stimulus with a 30 second rest period repeated for a total of 
9 times. The sequence of events is anticipated to be as follows: 
Pain Threshold and Tolerance Testing 
1. Delivery of 0.5 kgf/cm2 pressure stimulus to dominant thumbnail for 5-10 seconds using the 
automated system. 
2. Patient rates pain intensity of stimulus from a scale of 0-100. 
3. 20 second rest period (patient will not be told how long to prevent anticipation). 
4. Repeat steps 1-3 with increasing levels of pressure in 0.5 kgf/cm2 increments until participant asks to 
stop, pain intensity is >80/100, or maximum pressure of 10 kgf/cm2. 
5-10 minute rest period 
Slowly Repeated Evoked Pain Testing 
1. The intensity of the stimulus will be determined by using the following equation: 
Individualized SREP intensity = Threshold + 1.25*(DF/4), where DF = Tolerance-Threshold (ref) 
2. Delivery of individualized SREP intensity pressure stimulus to non-dominant thumbnail for 5 seconds 
using automated system. 
3. After 5 seconds, patient rates pain intensity of stimulus from a scale of 0-100. 
4. 20-30 second rest period (patient will not be told how long to prevent anticipation). 
5. Repeat steps 2-4 eight more times.  
The average time to test completion is less than 12 min based on the literature. We believe that most patients 
will be able to tolerate this stimulus. In a recent study by Harte et. al. (28), tolerability of the pressure stimulus 
was high and only 10 out of 298 patients opted out. They were able to obtain data for 62 patients with urologic 
chronic pelvic pain syndrome at the initial visit and 52 measurements at a 6 month follow-up visit. In fact, the 
pressure pain stimulus protocol has been adapted from this article. However, those who are unable to tolerate 
the stimulus will not be included in the anticipated accrual goal count. 
 
Since the initiation of study, we have recruited and tested 3 subjects. For those who have already completed 
the study, we will attempt to repeat the pain threshold and tolerance testing along with the slowly repeated 
evoked pain testing during a future clinic appointment. All other enrolled subjects who have not completed 
the study will undergo the entirety of the protocol on the day of MRI scanning. 
 
Exclusion of Pregnant Women 
Although MRI has not shown to affect pregnancy, those who are pregnant will be excluded from the study. 
Women of reproductive age will be asked to take a pregnancy test after informed consent has been obtained. 
The pregnancy test will be conducted on the day of the MRI scan. Those who have had bilateral 
oophorectomies, hysterectomy, and/or tubal ligations will be excluded from pregnancy testing. If pregnancy 
test is declined, the patient will be excluded from the study.  
 
 
 

Central Pain in HNC 8/31/20 
 
 
9 
PRO Data Collection  
Disease and treatment data (e.g. type and stage of cancer, date of cancer diagnosis) will be obtained from the 
participant’s medical record review by study staff at Vanderbilt.  
After patients have signed informed consent, they will be scheduled for study related activities at a time that 
is convenient to them. All patients will complete the Sociodemographic Data Collection Form, the Vanderbilt 
Head and Neck Symptom Survey plus General Symptom Survey Version 2.0, Profile of Mood States-Short 
Form, Neurotoxicity Rating Scale, the Quality of Life Assessment, Central Sensitivity Inventory, the 
Fibromyalgia Diagnostic Tool, and the Head and Neck Pain Inventory.  
Blood Draw:  
About 20% of the H&N cancer population develop long-term pain and systemic symptoms after treatment. 
However, the risk factors associated with the presumable development of central sensitization in this specific 
patient population have not been identified. To better understand the molecular basis of this treatment 
complications, patients will undergo phlebotomy for future molecular analyses. DNA, RNA, and plasma will be 
collected for genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic studies. Results will be vertically integrated along with 
the results of clinical studies described within this protocol to identify targets for future correlative studies.  
At the time of MRI, blood will be drawn from each patient. Up to 20 ml of blood will be divided for RNA, DNA, 
and plasma extraction. A portion of the blood will be divided into PAXgene tubes for RNA extraction. The 
remainder of the blood will be separated into plasma for proteomic analysis and cells for DNA extraction. 
Samples will be stored at -80C until ready for processing.  
Phenotype Designation:  
Following completion of the questionnaires, the patient’s responses will be reviewed by the principle 
investigator. Patients will complete the Central Sensitivity Inventory questionnaire, the Fibromyalgia 
Diagnostic Tool, and the Head and Neck Pain Inventory to determine inclusion into each cohort. Using criteria 
established in the non-oncologic patient population, patients will be assigned to one of three cohorts by thre 
independent reviewers (Dianne Lou, Barbara Murphy, and Nancy Wells): those with 1) no pain, 2) central pain 
and 3) nociceptive pain. At least two out of three reviewers much agree with each assignment. 25 patients 
from each of the principle cohorts will proceed to structural and functional MRI testing. Recruitment will 
continue until all three cohorts are filled. The patient’s participation will be concluded.   
Structural and Functional MRI Testing: 
The study staff will schedule MRI testing at a time that is convenient for the patient. The procedure will take 
approximately 1.5-2 hours.  
Compensation:  
Upon completion of the MRI, patients will be provided with a $50.00 gift card to compensate them for their 
time and effort.  
 
 
 

Central Pain in HNC 8/31/20 
 
 
10 
4.0 
Measures: 
Questionnaires: 
Demographic Data Form: Patients will be asked to report their birthdate, gender, race, ethnic category, 
highest educational level, marital status, employment status, area of residence, insurance coverage, and 
annual household income.  
Vanderbilt Head and Neck Symptom Survey plus General Symptom Survey version 2.0 (VHNSS v2.0 plus GSS): 
The VHNSS v2.0 (31) assesses the prevalence and severity of treatment-related symptoms and their functional 
impact in patients with head and neck cancer. The VHNSS v.2.0 consists of 50-items within 13 domains 
including nutrition, swallowing, xerostomia, mucositis, excess mucus, speech, hearing, taste change, smell, 
dental health, mucosal sensitivity, range of motion, and pain. Items are scored on a numeric scale rating the 
severity of the symptom from 0 (none) to 10 (severe). The VHNSS v.2.0 takes approximately 10 minutes to 
complete. VHNSS v2.0 plus GSS includes 12 additional items directed at the systemic effects of therapy.  
Profile of Mood States-Short Form (POMS-SF):  The POMS-SF is a 37-item scale is composed of six subscales: 
depression, vigor, confusion, tension, anger and fatigue. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 0.78 to 0.91. It 
correlates will with other measures of mood and physical function, yet is has the benefit of a short 
administration time.   
Neurotoxicity Rating Scale (NRS): The NRS is a 37 item instrument whose items reflect symptoms associated 
with neurotoxicity of medical treatment (32). Participants rate the severity of all of the 37 item, 5 point Likert-
like scale that rates neuropsychiatric symptoms on a scale of “not present” to “extremely severe.”  
Quality of Life: QOL will be measured using Cantril’s Ladder, a single item self-anchoring scale (33, 34).  The 
measure asks patients to rate their current quality of life on a scale ranging from 0 to 10, with higher scores 
indicating better overall quality of life. Discriminant validity has been supported by significantly lower scores 
in patients with rheumatoid arthritis than in healthy controls (35). Construct validity has been supported by a 
positive relationship between scores on to social role retention in survivors of bone marrow transplantation 
(36). A 5 item domain-specific QOL questionnaire will also be used.    
Central Sensitivity Inventory (CSI): The CSI is a two-part survey consisting of 35 questions (37). Part A asks 
patients to identify systemic symptoms as being present “never”, “rarely”, “sometimes”, “often”, or “always”. 
Part B determines whether patients have been previously diagnosed with central sensitivity syndromes or 
other related disorders. Only Part A is used for scoring.  
Fibromyalgia Diagnostic Tool (FDT): The FDT is a questionnaire developed based on the revised American 
College of Rheumatology’s diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia from 2016 (38). It combines the widespread 
pain index and the symptom severity scale to aid in the diagnosis of fibromyalgia and the severity of the 
disease. We will adapt the use of this diagnostic tool for the H&N cancer patient population to detect the 
presence of a central sensitivity phenotype.  
Head and Neck Pain Inventory (HNPI): The HNPI is a diagram in which patients can document specific areas of 
pain with an emphasis on the head and neck region. The patients are also asked to rate their pain on a scale 

Central Pain in HNC 8/31/20 
 
 
11 
of 1-10 in the past week, describe the type of pain they are experiencing, and document any treatments for 
their pain.  
Opioid Risk Took (ORT): The ORT is a self-reporting screening tool for adults to assess the risk for potential 
opioid abuse in patients with chronic pain. A score of <3 indicates low risk, 4-7 moderate risk, and >8 high risk 
(39). 
 
MRI protocol: 
Standardized protocols developed by investigators in the Imaging Center will be used for the structural and 
fMRI sessions. The scans will be acquired in order of importance. The study PI and/or appropriately trained 
key study personnel will be present at the time of imaging. The anticipated time to complete all of the 
following is estimated to be about 60 to 90 minutes. Physiologic data, such as heart rate and respiratory rate, 
will be collected using a pulse-oximeter on the non-dominant hand and a chest plethysmograph around the 
subject’s abdomen. These physiologic parameters have been shown to influence fMRI data acquisition and 
analysis. The following MRI scans will be acquired: 
 
• 
Baseline structural and resting state fMRI:  
Patients will be placed in scanner and acquisition of structural and resting state fMRI will be performed. 
Imaging will occur for a period of about 10-20 minutes while the patient is “resting” but not asleep.  
• 
fMRI in the presence of noxious stimulus: 
The pressure stimulus will be delivered via the IPC-1000 as described above. These systems are computer-
controlled and MRI-compatible so that a pressure stimulus can be administered in synchronization with 
imaging sequences. They allow for participant feedback during image collection so that patient pain 
responses can be recorded in real time. A pressure stimulus of XX will be delivered in a block design to the 
dominant thumbnail using the IPC-1000 for 5-30 second intervals with 5-30 second intervals of rest at an 
intensity that produces a pain score of 50 (characterized as “moderate pain”) as determined by previous 
testing in the clinic OR a pre-specified intensity of 2-4 kg/m2. This range produces an elicits an average 
pain score of 4-5/10, considered a “moderate” intensity, in fibromyalgia patients and has been used 
frequently in the literature (27, 40, 41). The scan is expected to take no longer than 10-20 minutes.  
• 
Diffusion Tensor Imaging: 
Following the completion of the stimulus scans, patients will undergo Diffusion Tensor Imaging in the 
resting state. This will take on average about 10-20 minutes. 
 
Blood Draws:  
Blood will be drawn before or after the above studies by staff trained in phlebotomy. Blood will be 
appropriately labeled, processed, and stored in a -80 degree freezer. 
 
 
 
 

Central Pain in HNC 8/31/20 
 
 
12 
5.0 
Risks  
The risks associated with this study are minimal. Participants may be inconvenienced due to the time required 
to complete the study instruments. It is possible that participants may experience psychological or emotional 
distress when they think about or talk about their illness and treatment experiences. The completion of self-
report questionnaires is anticipated to take less than thirty minutes. We will make every attempt to minimize 
any inconvenience.  
Interviews/surveys will be scheduled at a time that is convenient for participants. The interviews will take 
place in a quiet, private location and are estimated to last approximately 30 minutes. Participants will be 
allowed to take breaks as needed. Participants also will be allowed to refuse to answer any questions they do 
not wish to answer. Likewise, participants may discontinue answering questions at any time. If participants 
become emotionally upset or distressed, the research team member will provide an opportunity for them to 
discuss their concerns and will provide support. Participants also will be offered the opportunity for counseling 
with an oncology social worker at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center (VICC).  
The risks for MRI are as follows: There are no known major risks with an MRI scan. But, it is possible that 
harmful effects could be found out in the future.  Even though the tunnel is open, it may bother you to be 
placed in a tight space (claustrophobia), and to hear the noise made by the magnet during the scan.  You will 
be given earplugs to reduce the noise.  You may also feel the table vibrate and/or move slightly during the 
scan.  It may be hard to lie on the table during the scan.  If you have any metal pieces in your body, they could 
move during the scan and damage nearby tissues or organs.  
If you use a transdermal patch (medicated patches applied to the skin), you may need to take it off during the 
MRI scan.  Transdermal patches slowly deliver medicines through the skin.  Some patches have metal in the 
layer of the patch that is not in contact with the skin (the backing).  You may not be able to see the metal in 
the backing of these patches.  Patches that contain metal can overheat during an MRI scan and cause skin 
burns in the immediate area of the patch.  Tell the study doctor that you are using a patch and why you are 
using it (such as, for pain, smoking cessation, hormones).  Ask your doctor for guidance about removing and 
disposing of the patch before having an MRI scan and replacing it after the procedure.  Tell the MRI facility 
that you are using a patch.  You should do this when making your appointment and during the health history 
questions you are asked when you arrive for your appointment.  
The MRI used in this study has been used in human research for several years and no risks have been 
identified.  However some people may experience discomforts such as nausea, dizziness, flashing lights in the 
eyes, and a metal taste in the mouth.  These discomforts are most likely to occur as a result of rapid head 
movement in or near the MRI machine.  For this reason, you should try not to move, especially your head, 
while you are inside the MRI.  
 
 
 

Central Pain in HNC 8/31/20 
 
 
13 
6.0   
Reporting of Adverse Events 
 
The PI will oversee the safety of study. Any study-related adverse events will be reported to the IRB within 3 
business days depending on severity. The PI will check the REDCap database weekly to ensure improper access 
and handling of the data does not occur. All logs will be checked to ensure that any information downloaded 
from the REDCap database is performed by authorized personnel and for research purposes only.  
 
The PI will attend the weekly Head and Neck Research Team Meeting at which time she will review the study 
status with the study staff and her primary mentor, Dr. Murphy. Screening logs will be reviewed to make sure 
that there is appropriate capture of patients who are eligible for study. The status of patients who have 
consented will be reviewed to ensure timely completion of questionnaires, cohort assignment, and scheduling 
of MRIs. Issues with recruitment and completion of study related activities will be discussed at this meeting. 
There is no plan for a DSM because no intervention is involved. No interim analysis is planned due to the pilot 
nature of the study.  
 
There are no interventions in this study, therefore we do not anticipate adverse events. However, any adverse 
events will be presented at the weekly Head and Neck research Team meeting and reported to the IRB per 
requirements.  
 
 
 
7.0 
Study Withdrawal/Discontinuation 
Participants will be informed that their participation in the study is completely voluntary.  At the time of 
enrollment into the study, participants will be instructed that they may withdraw from the study at any point 
without penalty. To withdraw from the study, participants will be instructed to notify a research team member 
either by phone or in person.  Participants will be assured that withdrawal from the study will not affect their 
care, services, or benefits in any way.  If participants choose to withdraw from the study, the data collected 
prior to their withdrawal may still be used for research purposes. 
 
8.0 
Privacy/Confidentiality 
All reasonable efforts will be made to protect the confidentially of study participants.  Informed consent and 
data collection will take place in a quiet, private location.  All participants will be assigned a unique study 
identification number (ID).  This unique ID will be the sole identifier on all study data collection forms and 
other portable electronic media (CD’s).  No names will appear on data collection forms or other media.  The 
names, addresses, and telephone numbers that correspond to study identification numbers will be kept in a 
secure file in the study offices or on the REDCAP database.  All data on paper forms or portable electronic 
media will be secured in a locked file drawer in the study office.  All electronic data will be kept in password-
protected files on a secure network.  Only the Co-PIs and appropriate study personnel will have access to the 
data.  Findings from the study will be presented in aggregate form.  
 

Central Pain in HNC 8/31/20 
 
 
14 
9.0   
Records and Samples to be kept: 
Data Monitoring: All data forms (PRO’s, demographic data, disease and treatment data, etc.) and the consent 
form will be entered directly into electronic REDCap database, which is a secure, password-protected 
database. MRI imaging data (not part of standard of care) will be saved on the study password-protected 
database on a secure sever. Only the PI’s and research team have access to the electronic database. All data 
will be coded without any identifiable information. The study PI’s will maintain a key that links participants to 
ID number in a password-protected database on a secure server at close of study. Once the study results have 
been reported, the database will no longer be accessed, and all hard copies will be destroyed. 
Blood sample storage: Blood samples will be aliquoted into three vials. Each of the samples will be labeled 
with a unique study identification number and no names will appear on the vials. The samples will be stored 
at -80 degrees Celsius until ready for DNA, RNA, or protein processing. Processed samples will again be labeled 
with the unique study identification number assigned to each subject and stored at the appropriate 
temperature in Cardiovascular Translational and Clinical Research Core Facility.  
 
10.0  
Statistics and Sample Size: 
In this pilot study, patients will be categorized as having either no pain, peripheral pain or central pain 
according to responses given in the Fibromyalgia Diagnostic Tool, Central Sensitivity Index, and/or Head and 
Neck Pain Inventory. In the second aim of this study, we hypothesize that general symptom information, as 
measured using PRO measures, will be associated with these pain categories. Subscale information will be 
calculated from patient responses to the VHNSS v.2 + GSS, POMS, and the NRS for each patient. The resulting 
information will be stratified by pain group. The groups subscale scores will be compared using an analysis of 
variance to determine if there is a significant difference. A difference in the 0-10 subscale score of 0.35 would 
require approximately 25 patients per group to achieve 80% power. 
 
 
 

Central Pain in HNC 8/31/20 
 
 
15 
11.0  
References: 
1. 
NCI. (https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics, April 27, 2018). 
2. 
D. Bouhassira, E. Luporsi, I. Krakowski, Prevalence and incidence of chronic pain with or without 
neuropathic characteristics in patients with cancer. Pain 158, 1118-1125 (2017). 
3. 
J. S. Lee et al., New Persistent Opioid Use Among Patients With Cancer After Curative-Intent Surgery. 
J Clin Oncol 35, 4042-4049 (2017). 
4. 
A. W. Burton, G. J. Fanciullo, R. D. Beasley, M. J. Fisch, Chronic pain in the cancer survivor: a new 
frontier. Pain Med 8, 189-198 (2007). 
5. 
B. A. Murphy, S. Ridner, N. Wells, M. Dietrich, Quality of life research in head and neck cancer: a review 
of the current state of the science. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 62, 251-267 (2007). 
6. 
A. Latremoliere, C. J. Woolf, Central sensitization: a generator of pain hypersensitivity by central 
neural plasticity. J Pain 10, 895-926 (2009). 
7. 
J. Nijs et al., Pain following cancer treatment: Guidelines for the clinical classification of predominant 
neuropathic, nociceptive and central sensitization pain. Acta Oncol 55, 659-663 (2016). 
8. 
O. J. Vilholm, S. Cold, L. Rasmussen, S. H. Sindrup, The postmastectomy pain syndrome: an 
epidemiological study on the prevalence of chronic pain after surgery for breast cancer. Br J Cancer 
99, 604-610 (2008). 
9. 
R. Gartner et al., Prevalence of and factors associated with persistent pain following breast cancer 
surgery. Jama 302, 1985-1992 (2009). 
10. 
M. Johannsen, S. Christensen, R. Zachariae, A. B. Jensen, Socio-demographic, treatment-related, and 
health behavioral predictors of persistent pain 15 months and 7-9 years after surgery: a nationwide 
prospective study of women treated for primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 152, 645-658 
(2015). 
11. 
M. S. Wallace, A. M. Wallace, J. Lee, M. K. Dobke, Pain after breast surgery: a survey of 282 women. 
Pain 66, 195-205 (1996). 
12. 
M. Brackstone, A review of the literature and discussion: establishing a consensus for the definition 
of post-mastectomy pain syndrome to provide a standardized clinical and research approach. Can J 
Surg 59, 294-295 (2016). 
13. 
C. Herndon et al. (2018). 
14. 
L. Leysen et al., Chronic Pain in Breast Cancer Survivors: Nociceptive, Neuropathic, or Central 
Sensitization Pain? Pain Pract 19, 183-195 (2019). 
15. 
M. Manfuku et al., Comparison of central sensitization-related symptoms and health-related quality 
of life between breast cancer survivors with and without chronic pain and healthy controls. Breast 
Cancer,  (2019). 
16. 
M. T. Fallon et al., Oral Ketamine vs Placebo in Patients With Cancer-Related Neuropathic Pain: A 
Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol 4, 870-872 (2018). 
17. 
K. Phillips, D. J. Clauw, Central pain mechanisms in chronic pain states--maybe it is all in their head. 
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 25, 141-154 (2011). 
18. 
L. M. Arnold et al., Fibromyalgia and Chronic Pain Syndromes: A White Paper Detailing Current 
Challenges in the Field. Clin J Pain 32, 737-746 (2016). 
19. 
S. Chinn, W. Caldwell, K. Gritsenko, Fibromyalgia Pathogenesis and Treatment Options Update. Curr 
Pain Headache Rep 20, 25 (2016). 
20. 
R. Talotta et al., One year in review 2017: fibromyalgia. Clin Exp Rheumatol 35 Suppl 105, 6-12 (2017). 
21. 
J. J. Kutch et al., Brain signature and functional impact of centralized pain: a multidisciplinary approach 
to the study of chronic pelvic pain (MAPP) network study. Pain 158, 1979-1991 (2017). 
22. 
V. Napadow et al., Intrinsic brain connectivity in fibromyalgia is associated with chronic pain intensity. 
Arthritis Rheum 62, 2545-2555 (2010). 

Central Pain in HNC 8/31/20 
 
 
16 
23. 
P. Sawaddiruk, S. Paiboonworachat, N. Chattipakorn, S. C. Chattipakorn, Alterations of brain activity 
in fibromyalgia patients. J Clin Neurosci 38, 13-22 (2017). 
24. 
B. Walitt, M. Ceko, J. L. Gracely, R. H. Gracely, Neuroimaging of Central Sensitivity Syndromes: Key 
Insights from the Scientific Literature. Curr Rheumatol Rev 12, 55-87 (2016). 
25. 
M. E. Shy et al., Quantitative sensory testing.  (2003). 
26. 
E. Wulff-Burchfield, M. S. Dietrich, S. Ridner, B. A. Murphy, Late Systemic Symptoms in Head and Neck 
Cancer Survivors   (2018). 
27. 
S. E. Harte et al., Development and validation of a pressure-type automated quantitative sensory 
testing system for point-of-care pain assessment. Med Biol Eng Comput 51, 633-644 (2013). 
28. 
S. E. Harte et al., Quantitative assessment of nonpelvic pressure pain sensitivity in urologic chronic 
pelvic pain syndrome: a MAPP Research Network study. Pain 160, 1270-1280 (2019). 
29. 
d. l. C. P, B. S, M.-P. M, R. D. P. GA, Responses to Slowly Repeated Evoked Pain Stimuli in Fibromyalgia 
Patients: Evidence of Enhanced Pain Sensitization. Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) 18, 1778-1786 
(2017). 
30. 
d. l. C. P, B. S, G.-S. CM, R. D. P. GA, Slowly Repeated Evoked Pain as a Marker of Central Sensitization 
in Fibromyalgia: Diagnostic Accuracy and Reliability in Comparison With Temporal Summation of Pain. 
Psychosomatic medicine 80, 573-580 (2018). 
31. 
E. Cooperstein et al., Vanderbilt Head and Neck Symptom Survey version 2.0: report of the 
development and initial testing of a subscale for assessment of oral health. Head Neck 34, 797-804 
(2012). 
32. 
A. Niiranen et al., Behavioral assessment of patients treated with alpha-interferon. Acta Psychiatr 
Scand 78, 622-626 (1988). 
33. 
D. Kilpatrick, Self-Anchoring Scaling: A Measure of Individuals' Unique Reality Worlds. Journal of 
Individual Psychology 16, 158-173 (1960). 
34. 
K. McKuchan, W. Cawling, M. Wykle, in Nursing Research Methodology. (Appleton-Century Crofts, 
Norfolk, CT, 1986), pp. 285-294. 
35. 
S. I. Bekkelund, T. Torbergsen, G. Husby, S. I. Mellgren, Myopathy and neuropathy in rheumatoid 
arthritis. A quantitative controlled electromyographic study. J Rheumatol 26, 2348-2351 (1999). 
36. 
F. Baker, B. Curbow, J. R. Wingard, Role retention and quality of life of bone marrow transplant 
survivors. Soc Sci Med 32, 697-704 (1991). 
37. 
T. G. Mayer et al., The development and psychometric validation of the central sensitization inventory. 
Pain Pract 12, 276-285 (2012). 
38. 
F. Wolfe et al., 2016 Revisions to the 2010/2011 fibromyalgia diagnostic criteria. Semin Arthritis 
Rheum 46, 319-329 (2016). 
39. 
L. R. Webster, R. M. Webster, Predicting aberrant behaviors in opioid-treated patients: preliminary 
validation of the Opioid Risk Tool. Pain Med 6, 432-442 (2005). 
40. 
S. E. Harte et al., Pharmacologic attenuation of cross-modal sensory augmentation within the chronic 
pain insula. Pain 157, 1933-1945 (2016). 
41. 
T. Schmidt-Wilcke et al., Resting state connectivity correlates with drug and placebo response in 
fibromyalgia patients. Neuroimage Clin 6, 252-261 (2014).