Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 14;19(3):e0297742. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297742

Risk factors and related miRNA phenotypes of chronic pain after thoracoscopic surgery in lung adenocarcinoma patients

Lihong Zhang 1,#, Liming Xu 1,#, Zhiyuan Chen 1, Haiping You 1, Huirong Hu 1, Hefan He 1,*
Editor: Silvia Fiorelli2
PMCID: PMC10939217  PMID: 38483909

Abstract

Chronic postsurgical pain may have a substantial impact on patient’s quality of life, and has highly heterogenous presentation amongst sufferers. We aimed to explore the risk factors relating to chronic pain and the related miRNA phenotypes in patients with lung adenocarcinoma after video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy to identify potential biomarkers. Our prospective study involved a total of 289 patients with early invasive adenocarcinoma undergoing thoracoscopic lobotomy and a follow-up period of 3 months after surgery. Blood was collected the day before surgery for miRNA detection and patient information including operation duration, duration of continuous drainage of the chest, leukocyte count before and after operation, and postoperative pain scores were recorded. Using clinical and biochemical information for each patient, the risk factors for chronic postsurgical pain and related miRNA phenotypes were screened. We found that chronic postsurgical pain was associated with higher body mass index; greater preoperative history of chronic pain; longer postoperative drainage tube retention duration; higher numerical rating scale scores one, two, and three days after surgery; and changes in miRNA expression, namely lower expression of miRNA 146a-3p and higher expression of miRNA 550a-3p and miRNA 3613-3p in peripheral blood (p < 0.05). Of these factors, patient body mass index, preoperative history of chronic pain, average numerical rating scale score after operation, and preoperative peripheral blood miRNA 550a-3P expression were independent risk factors for the development of chronic postsurgical pain. Identification of individual risk markers may aid the development and selection of appropriate preventive and control measures.

Introduction

Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is defined as the pain that develops after a surgical procedure, lasts for at least 3 months, and cannot be attributed to other causes or preexisting pain [1]. Chronic pain and decline in physical function after surgery can impact patient quality of life by leading to sleep disturbances, anxiety, and depression. Thoracic surgery, including thoracoscopic surgery (although less invasive than thoracotomy), still has a high incidence of CPSP [2, 3]. It is now generally accepted that postsurgical chronic pain is the consequence either of ongoing inflammation or a manifestation of neuropathic pain, resulting from surgical injury to major peripheral nerves [4]. Given that only a subset of surgical patients develop chronic pain, it is inferred that postoperative chronic pain presents with high individual differences and significant genetic heterogeneity [5, 6]. Existing studies have found that differentially expressed microRNAs (miRNAs) found in the peripheral blood of patients with chronic neuropathic pain are closely related and can be used as potential markers of pain [79].

It is helpful to use the factors associated with the development of chronic pain to formulate effective prevention and control measures. Therefore, we conducted a prospective study for over two years. The primary aim of this study was to identify independently predictors of CPSP after VATS. The second aim was to search for miRNA predictors of CPSP in peripheral blood, so as to provide directions for further research on the pathogenesis and development of CPSP.

Methods

Patients and inclusion criteria

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University (2019 Fuyi No. 2 Ethical Review [No. 208]) and has been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, registration number: ChiCTR2200057092. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects before study.

In the present study, 289 patients (28–79 years of age) with early invasive adenocarcinoma (diagnosed by intraoperative frozen pathology) who underwent thoracoscopic lobotomy without lymph node dissection by the same group of surgeons were observed from June 2019 to April 2022. Finally, the patients were divided into two groups (non-CPSP and CPSP) according to the presence or absence of CPSP.

The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1. American Academy of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification I–III; 2. Patients > 18 years old, with early infiltrating adenocarcinoma tissue type, with two indwelling catheters placed in the chest; 3. Absence of other malignant tumors; 4. Absence of peripheral neuropathy; 5. No peripheral (somatic) or internal (visceral) chest pain before surgery; 6. Willingness to cooperate with follow-up testing and to sign informed consent form. The exclusion criteria were as follows: 1. Transfer to open surgery for various reasons; 2. Postoperative pneumonia, atelectasis, pulmonary edema; 3. The final pathological diagnoses were different from the intraoperative frozen pathological results; 4. Those who underwent reoperation at the ipsilateral site during the study period; 5. Receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or other antitumor therapy prior to or three months after surgery; 6. Study could not be completed for various reasons (failed ESP-block, loss of follow-up etc.).

Patient characteristics and medical history

Through clinical observation and analysis of medical history, the possible factors influencing postoperative chronic pain were predicted, observed, measured, and recorded. The day before surgery, the general information and medical history for each patient were recorded, including sex, age, body mass index (BMI), ASA classification, sleep quality, anxiety state, history of chronic pain, smoking history and the presence of hypertension and diabetes. The Dosage of sufentanil, remifentanil and dexmedetomidine per kilogram during anesthesia, operation duration, postoperative drainage tube retention time, one day preoperative and one day postoperative white blood cell counts, and postoperative pain score during activity (days one, two, and three) were recorded. Peripheral blood samples were collected from patients one day before the operation. The occurrence of CPSP was recorded at return visits via telephone three months after the operation.

Surgery

After the patients entered the operating room and had their peripheral venous access opened, they were all given an erector spinae plane block by horizontal ultrasound of the T5 transverse process on the affected side (formula: 0.5% ropivacaine, 20 mL). Vertebral body segments were tested at 30 min after completion of the block, and if the pain of acupuncture on the blocked side was significantly less than that on the non-blocked side, then the block effect was considered satisfactory. Midazolam, cisatracurium besylate, etomidate, and sufentanil were used for general anesthesia, and a double-lumen endobronchial tube was used for tracheal intubation. Propofol, sufentanil, remifentanil, cisatracurium, and dexmedetomidine were used to maintain the general anesthesia. Oxygen saturation levels, end-tidal carbon dioxide tension, and body temperature were maintained at normal levels, while heart rate and blood pressure fluctuated to within 20% of those measurements before the operation. The bispectral index value during the operation was maintained at 40–60. After surgery, the patient was connected to an intravenous analgesia pump containing sufentanil (1 μg/(kg·d) with 0.9% saline made up to 100 mL, with a single dose of 3 mL, background dose of 1 mL/h, loading dose of 2 mL, and locking time of 15 min. The patient was awake with full Steward score and experienced no discomfort in the recovery room.

Research tools

The Chinese validated version of the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (BPI-SF) [10] was adopted to assess pain intensity at one, two, three, and 90 days after surgery by a trained investigator who was blinded to the patients’ perioperative care to prevent any possibility of bias. After confirmation of no signs of exclusion criteria, the patients were asked whether they experienced any pain at or near the surgical area that they considered related to the thoracic surgery. Patients who replied with “no” to any of the above questions were required not to respond further questions, whereas the remaining patients were invited to finish the questionnaires. The patients were instructed to score their worst pain severity by the 0 to 10 NRS (numerical rating scale) from the preceding 24 hours. Then, the patients were inquired about the pain location and their current analgesic use. A score of 0 was considered painless, 1 to 3 indicated mild pain, 4 to 6 indicated moderate pain, and 7 to 10 indicated severe pain. According to the NRS score on the 90th day after surgery, patients with an NRS score of 0 were considered to have no CPSP, and patients with NRS score ≥1 were considered to have CPSP. On days one to three after surgery, if the NRS score was ≥6, 10 mg of oxycodone sustained-release tablets were given orally once every 12 h.

The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (TAI) was used during observation. The TAI consists of 20 multiple-choice questions, with 10 questions expressing negative emotions (positive scores) and 10 questions expressing positive emotions (negative scores). Each question is scored from 1 to 4, with 1 point indicating almost never, 2 points somewhat, 3 points frequent, and 4 points almost always. According to the anxiety score, patients were divided into groups with points ranging from 20–30, 30–40, and >40. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index was used to assess sleep quality. It measured seven components including subjective sleep quality, sleep latency, sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep disorder, hypnotic drugs, and daytime dysfunction, wherein each component is scored according to grade 0 to 3, and the accumulated total score ranges from 0 to 21 points. Higher total scores indicated poorer sleep quality.

Detection of miRNA in peripheral blood

Collection of white blood cell samples

One day before surgery, 5 mL of peripheral blood was collected and placed into a vacuum blood collection tube containing EDTA-K2 anticoagulant. Blood was aspirated 10 times fast through a very small needle to induce hemolysis in combination with the anticoagulant. After centrifuged,10000g, 4 degrees, 10min, the supernatant was removed to leave the white blood cell precipitate. TRIzol was added (106–107 cells plus 500ul) and aspirated repeatedly until a large amount of foam was produced. Then stored in a freezer at −80°C.

Extraction of total RNA

Total RNA was extracted from white cells using mirVanaTM RNA Isolation Kit according to the manufacturer’s specifications. The white cells supplemented with TRIzol were thawed and lysed, and total RNA was extracted by chloroform extraction, isopropanol precipitation, ethanol washing, and precipitation. Firstly, added chloroform (chloroform: TRIzol = 1:5), mixed vigorously for 15s, and let stand at room temperature for 10 min. Centrifuged,12,000g, 15min, 4°C. Absorbed the supernatant, transfered it to new EP tube, add isopropanol (isopropanol: TRIzol = 1:2), mixed thoroughly (8–10 times), and incubated at room temperature for 10min. Centrifuged,12,000g, 10min, 4°C. It could be seen that there was gel-like precipitation at the bottom of tube. Discarded the supernatant, added 75% ethanol (ethanol: TRIzol = 1:1), and mixed gently. 7500g, 5min. Discarded the supernatant, inverted it on the filter paper and dried at room temperature for 5 min. Add 50ul RNase-free ddH20 to fully dissolve RNA. The resulting RNA solution was stored at -70° C. The yield of RNA was determined using a NanoDrop 2000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, USA), and the integrity was evaluated using agarose gel electrophoresis stained with ethidium bromide.

Construction of a small RNA library and high-throughput sequencing

Three white blood cell samples from each group treated with TRIzol were randomly selected and submitted to Shanghai Europe Easy Biomedical Technology Co., Ltd., to complete the construction of a small RNA library and high-throughput sequencing (The RNA quality was measured by 2100 Bioanalyzer and quantified using ND-2000 NanoDrop Technologies. And one case found as unqualified in quality inspection was rejected). Differences in miRNA expression between CPSP and non-CPSP groups were examined, and a total of 24 differentially expressed miRNAs were detected (p-value<0.05&|log2FC|>1) as shown in Figs 1 and 2. Of these, 6 miRNAs (miR-146a, let-7a, miR-145, miR-550a, miR-132 and miR-3613) have been reported to be associated with chronic secondary pain, especially the miR-146a [7, 11]. Combined with the analysis of data stability and difference significance, three miRNAs (two upregulated [miR-550a-3P and miR-3613-3p] and one downregulated [miR-146a-3P]) with most stable and obvious differential expression and possibly greater correlation with chronic pain were selected for real-time fluorescent quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) verification.

Fig 1. CPSP-vs-Control-volcano-pval-0.05-FC-2.

Fig 1

miRNA.

Fig 2. CPSP-vs-Control-heatmap-pval-0.05-FC-2.

Fig 2

miRNA.

Fluorescent quantitative PCR detection

Quantification was performed with a two-step reaction process: reverse transcription (RT) and PCR. A miRNA reverse transcription kit (No: AT351, TransScript miRNA First-Strand cDNA Synthesis SuperMIX, TransGen Biotech, China) was used to conduct reverse transcription reaction on the extracted total RNA, following the manufacturers protocol. Each RT reaction consisted of 0.5 μg RNA, 5 μl of 2×TS miRNA Reaction Mix and 0.5 μl of TransScrip miRNA RT Enzyme Mix, in a total volume of 10 μl. Reactions were performed in a GeneAmp® PCR System 9700 (Applied Biosystems, USA) for 60 min at 37°C, followed by heat inactivation of RT for 5s at 85°C. The 10 μl RT reaction mix was then diluted × 10 in nuclease-free water. Real-time PCR was performed using LightCycler® 480 Ⅱ Real-time PCR Instrument (Roche, Swiss) with 10 μl PCR reaction mixture that included 1 μl of cDNA, 5 μl of 2×PerfectStartTM Green qPCR SuperMix, 0.2μl of universal primer, 0.2 μl of microRNA-specific primer and 3.6 μl of nuclease-free water. Reactions were incubated in a 384-well optical plate (Roche, Swiss) at 94°C for 30s, followed by 45 cycles of 94°C for 5s, 60°C for 30s. Each sample was run in triplicate for analysis. At the end of the PCR cycles, melting curve analysis was performed to validate the specific generation of the expected PCR product. U6 was selected as the internal reference gene. The primer sequences are listed in Table 1. The relative expression levels were determined using the 2 −△△ Ct method. Finally, Blood samples from 232 patients (88 in the CPSP group and 144 in the non-CPSP group) were used for miRNA detection and the Ct values of all the samples are provided in S1 Table.

Table 1. Types of miRNAs.
miRNA Forward primer (5′→3′)
U6 CAAGGATGACACGCAAATTCG
miR-550a-3P TCTTACTCCCTCAGGCACAT
miR-146a-3P TCTGAAATTCAGTTCTTCAGAAA
miR-3613-3P CGACAAAAAAAAAAGCCCAACC

Sample size

The sample size was calculated using the minimal clinically difference found in our previous study (History of Chronic Pain in CPSP group: 0.2885 and non-CPSP group:0.1294) [12]. And yielded the following results: 95 cases in the CPSP group and 155 cases in the non-CPSP group (α  =  0.05; power  =  0.9; ratio of sample size: 0.61; two-sided; lost to follow-up ratio: 0.1). Additionally, there should be an adequate number of events per independent variable to avoid an overfit model, with commonly recommended minimum "rules of thumb" ranging from 10 to 20 events per covariate [13]. Therefore, 289 patients were observed (Seven covariates were included in the regression analysis). Due to loss of follow-up and other reasons, 57 cases were excluded. Finally, 232 patients were included (88 patients in the CPSP group and 144 patients in the non-CPSP group).

Statistical analysis

The normality of continuous data was tested using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Normally distributed parameters are presented as (x¯ ± s) and were analyzed using the Student’s t-test. Non-normally distributed parameters are presented as median M (P25, P75) and were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test. The difference in continuous variables over time was tested using two-way repeated measures ANOVA. Categorical data were described as numbers or percentages and analyzed with the χ2 test. Risk factor analysis of CPSP was performed using binary logistic regression.

Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. SPSS Statistics version 26.0 for Windows was used to perform all analyses.

Results

At last, 57 patients were excluded by application of the exclusion criteria, 8 of them were transferred to open surgery, 16 of them developed postoperative pneumonia, atelectasis, pulmonary edema, 5 of them were founded to be different final pathological diagnoses from intraoperative frozen, and 28 of them were excluded because they were unable to complete the study for various reasons. Finally, a total of 232 eligible patients were included in the study (Fig 3). Of these, 88 experienced CPSP (37.9%) and 144 did not. CPSP was mild in 79 cases (89.8%), moderate in eight cases (9%), and severe in one case (1.2%, with affected sleep).

Fig 3. Flow diagram for patient inclusion.

Fig 3

As shown in Table 2, the CPSP group had a higher BMI, greater history of preoperative chronic pain, and longer duration of continuous tube drainage than the non-CPSP group (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in sex, age, sleep quality score, trait anxiety score, history of hypertension, history of diabetes, operation time, or WBC count difference before and after surgery between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Table 2. Comparison of general and clinical information between the two groups.

General information CPSP group Non-CPSP group (n = 144) t/Z/χ2 p
(n = 88)
Male/female 38/50 71/73 0.822 0.365
Age (years) 55.41 ± 10.09 57.04 ± 10.76 -1.147 0.252
Body mass index 24.28 ± 2.90 22.79 ± 2.45 4.160 0.000
Sleep quality score (score) 5.52 ± 3.91 6.21 ± 3.38 -1.413 0.159
Trait anxiety score (score) 29.77 ± 6.16 30.01 ± 6.55 -0.278 0.781
Hypertension (with/without) 22/66 33/111 0.131 0.717
Diabetes (with/without) 9/79 14/130 0.016 0.901
History of chronic pain, n (%) 25 (28.41) 18 (12.50) 9.156 0.002
Smoking history, n (%) 11(12.50) 27(18.75) 1.558 0.212
Sufentanil dosage (ug/kg) 0.83 (0.75, 0.83) 0.83 (0.67, 0.83) 1.160 0.246
Remifentanil dosage (ug/kg) 16 (12,20) 15(11,20) 1.526 0.127
Dexmedetomidine dosage (ug/kg) 0.9 (0.7,1.0) 0.8 (0.7,1.0) 1.340 0.180
Operation duration (min) 204.20 ± 74.30 187.64 ± 70.52 1.700 0.090
Continuous drainage time of the chest (days) 3.71 ± 1.38 3.31 ± 0.69 2.551 0.012
White blood cell count difference (×10 9 /L) 6.31 ± 2.36 5.68 ± 3.12 1.622 0.106

CPSP, chronic postsurgical pain

There was an intergroup difference in the NRS scores between the two groups after surgery (p = 0.001), and the NRS scores in the CPSP group were higher than those in the non-CPSP groups. The differences in NRS scores at the three time points were statistically significant (p = 0.001). The longer the operation time, the lower the NRS score (Table 3). However, there was no significant differences in the interaction effects between groups and time.

Table 3. Comparison of numerical rating scale scores after operation between the two groups, (x¯±s, score).

Group n NRS 1 d NRS 2 d NRS 3 d NRS average
CPSP group 88 3.57 ± 1.37 2.81 ± 1.16 2.12 ± 0.96 2.34±0.73
Non-CPSP group 144 2.94 ± 1.06 2.35 ± 0.93 1.74 ± 0.71 2.83±0.99
Time comparison Group comparison Interaction group* time
F/t - 183.329 18.884 1.646 4.04
p - 0.000 0.000 0.197 0.000

CPSP, chronic postsurgical pain

NRS, numerical rating scale.

Compared with the non-CPSP group, there were 16 upregulated and eight downregulated miRNAs in the CPSP group, as shown in Figs 1 and 2. Compared to that of the non-CPSP group, the preoperative expression of miR-146a-3P in the peripheral blood of the CPSP group was lower, and the expression of miR-550a-3P and miR-3613-3P was higher (p < 0.05), as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Comparison of miRNA in preoperative peripheral blood of patients, M (P25, P75).

Group n miR 146a-3P miR 550a-3P miR 3613-3P
CPSP group 88 0.64 (0.25, 1.81) 1.42 (0.79, 2.60) 1.18 (0.82, 1.72)
Non-CPSP group 144 1.02 (0.46, 2.28) 1.03 (0.59, 1.74) 0.93 (0.65, 1.47)
Z - 2.214 3.303 2.336
p - 0.027 0.001 0.020

CPSP, chronic postsurgical pain.

Binary logistic regression was applied to examine predictors of CPSP after VATS. The presence of CPSP was regarded as the dependent variable and covariates were chosen based on statistical significance or possible clinical importance, variates with P<0.10 in the univariate analysis were entered in the regression analysis. In addition, collinearity diagnosis on all the covariables included in the regression analysis was performed and found that the tolerance>0.2 and VIF<5. It could be considered that there was no collinearity as shown in Table 5. As showed in Table 6, four risk factors were identified for CPSP after VATS: BMI (OR 1.207, 95% CI 1.069–1.363, P = 0.002), preoperative history of chronic pain (OR 2.865, 95% CI 1.321–6.215, P = 0.008), average NRS score (OR1.838, 95% CI 1.266–2.668, P = 0.001), and preoperative peripheral blood miR-550a-3P value (OR1.699, 95% CI 1.242–2.324, P = 0.001) The correlation between observed factors and the occurrence of CPSP is shown in Fig 4. The prediction probability for CPSP after VATS yield the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.781 (95% CI 0.718–0.844) (Fig 5), and the model showed good calibration by Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic with χ2 = 4.317, P = 0.827.

Table 5. Collinearity diagnosis.

coefficienta
model Unstandardized coefficient Standardized coefficient - - Collinearity statistics
B Standard error Beta t Significance Tolerance VIF
1 (constant) -1.175 0.275 - -4.277 0.000 - -
BMI 0.034 0.011 0.189 3.116 0.002 0.937 1.067
Continuous drainage time 0.049 0.029 0.105 1.699 0.091 0.912 1.097
History of chronic pain 0.196 0.074 0.157 2.635 0.009 0.971 1.030
Operation duration 0.000 0.000 0.072 1.184 0.237 0.935 1.070
NRS average 0.115 0.034 0.205 3.399 0.001 0.949 1.054
miR 146a-3P -0.009 0.009 -0.065 -1.096 0.274 0.979 1.021
miR 550a-3P 0.093 0.027 0.206 3.456 0.001 0.972 1.028
miR 3613-3P 0.045 0.040 0.067 1.121 0.264 0.969 1.032

a. Dependent variable: group

Table 6. Logistic regression analysis of risk factors for chronic postsurgical pain.

Single factor β Standard error Wald χ2 OR (95% CI) p
Body mass index 0.188 0.062 9.230 1.207 (1.069, 1.363) 0.002
Continuous drainage time 0.289 0.178 2.650 1.335 (0.943, 1.891) 0.104
History of chronic pain 1.053 0.395 7.097 2.865 (1.321,6.215) 0.008
Operation duration 0.003 0.002 1.498 1.003 (.998,1.007) 0.221
NRS average 0.609 0.190 10.239 1.838 (1.266, 2.668) 0.001
miR 146a-3P -0.049 0.049 1.005 0.952 (0.866, 1.048) 0.316
miR 550a-3P 0.530 0.160 10.989 1.699(1.242, 2.324) 0.001
miR 3613-3P 0.241 0.212 1.288 1.272(0.840, 1.927) 0.256

NRS, numerical rating scale

OR, odds Ratio.

Fig 4. CPSP-vs-Control-forest-map.

Fig 4

Fig 5. The area under the ROC curve of CPSP model.

Fig 5

Discussion

The incidence, influencing factors, and pathogenesis of CPSP may vary significantly among different patients undergoing different types of surgeries.

In this study, preoperative erector spinae plane block was performed to reduce the degree of acute postoperative pain. The difference of white blood cells before and after the operation did not have statistical significance could exclude the effect of postoperative infection on CPSP. All patients with early lung adenocarcinoma as their pathological diagnosis underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy without lymph node dissection by the same group of surgeons. And the results also showed no significant difference on surgery duration. The control of these perioperative factors that may affect the occurrence of CPSP was conducive to search for CPSP susceptible population and find more closely related and more predictive genetic factors.

Meanwhile, considering the influence of some possible changing factors on the development of CPSP during the study (It is now generally accepted that postsurgical chronic pain is the consequence either of ongoing inflammation or a manifestation of neuropathic pain, resulting from surgical injury to major peripheral nerves [4]. In addition, a 10-year single-center retrospective study showed that postoperative chemotherapy, and postoperative radiotherapy were significant risk factors for CPSP [3]),and the consistency and integrity of the collected data. 57 patients (= 19.7%) were excluded by application of the exclusion criteria.

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small, endogenous, non-coding RNAs of ∼22 to 26 nucleotides in length that play important regulatory roles in a substantial proportion of processes in both normal and disease states [14]. Some studies have shown that differential expression of miRNAs is closely associated with chronic pain [79]. Microarray and deep-sequencing analyses revealed that nerve injury or noxious stimuli could induce broad changes in miRNA expression in serum or along the pain processing pathways. Dysregulated miRNAs contribute to neuropathic pain via neuroinflammation, autophagy, abnormal ion channel expression, regulating pain-related mediators, protein kinases, structural proteins, neurotransmission excitatory–inhibitory imbalances, or exosome miRNA-mediated neuron–glia communication [15]. There are several studies reporting changes in miRNA expression in patients with chronic pain, such as miR-146a, let-7a, miR-145, miR-550a, miR-132 and miR-3613 [7, 11]. Therefore, in this study, we analyzed the differential expression of the miRNAs 146a-3P, 550a-3P, and 3613-3P, which were initially identified as relevant to CPSP through rough micro-RNA sequencing.

In this prospective study, the incidence of CPSP three months after surgery was 37.9%. Logistic regression analysis showed that high BMI, preoperative history of chronic pain, average NRS score after operation, and high expression of miR-550a-3P in preoperative peripheral blood were the risk factors for the development of CPSP. It has been reported that obese patients after surgical treatment of lung cancer suffer more from pain in the postoperative period than nonobese patients [16]. In another study, obesity was found to be linked with genetic polymorphism altering sensitivity to pain, thus indicating that chronic pain might be related both to obesity and genetic factors [17]. Resistin is considered a proinflammatory cytokine that is primarily expressed and secreted by monocytes and macrophages in humans [18]. High BMI as a risk factor for developing CPSP may be related to the participation of resistin in adipose tissue in the regulation of inflammatory processes [19].

There are differences in opinions in the literature on whether the postoperative pain score is a risk factor for developing CPSP [2022]. In the present study, the NRS scores of patients in the two groups were significantly different on one, two, and three days after surgery, and the acute postoperative pain intensity of patients in the CPSP group was higher than that of patients without CPSP. In addition, according to regression analysis results, the mean NRS score 3 days after operation was a risk factor for CPSP. Consequently, clinicians should take active measures to control postoperative acute pain in patients, which could facilitate the prevention of the occurrence of postoperative chronic pain. The study showed the early warning effect of miR-550a-3P on CPSP after thoracoscopic surgery. Pellegrino A et al. also showed strong correlation between miR-550a-3p and chronic painful polyneuropathies [11]. Their research demonstrated that gene “myelin transcription factor 1 like” (MYT1L) is potentially targeted by miR-550a-3p [11]. MYT1L promotes axonal development/differentiation, neurite outgrowth/proliferation, synaptic transmission, extracellular matrix composition, as well as remyelination after induced demyelination [23, 24]. In this study, the expression levels of miR-146a-3P and miR-3613-3P in preoperative peripheral blood of patients without CPSP were significantly different from those with CPSP. Phạm TL et al. demonstrated that miR-146a-5p-loaded nanoparticles (NPs) can attenuate neuropathic pain behaviors in the rat spinal nerve ligation-induced neuropathic pain model by inhibiting activation of the NF-κB and p38 MAPK pathways in spinal microglia [25]. And certain study has shown that miR-3613-3P is highly expressed in the X chromosome and is related to sex-related pain [26], which may explain why relevant research shows that women are at a higher risk for developing CPSP [21]. But the regression analysis did not support that miR-146a-3P and miR-3613-3P were the risk factors for developing CPSP in these patients. The specific reasons for the differences from the previous reports need to be further studied.

The present study had some limitations. First, it is difficult to guarantee the accuracy of a follow-up telephone interview to determine whether patients have CPSP and the severity of CPSP. Second, the observations were limited to patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery for early lung adenocarcinoma, meaning it is not clear whether the results can be generalized to other lung cancer patients. Third, no pathway analysis associated with microRNAs. To obtain more accurate and applicable conclusions, further studies should be carried out which expand the number of observational cases and improve the observation methods.

In summary, the present study reveals that the preoperative BMI, preoperative expression level of miR-550a-3P in peripheral blood, preoperative history of chronic pain, and postoperative NRS score are independent risk factors for CPSP following thoracoscopic lobotomy in patients with early-stage pulmonary infiltrating adenocarcinoma. In the case of patients with high preoperative BMI, high expression of miR-550a-3P in peripheral blood, or a history of chronic pain, clinicians should actively take measures to reduce postoperative NRS scores, which could reduce the incidence of postoperative chronic pain. If an obese patient has long-lasting chronic pain after surgery, can it be treated by losing weight? And the expression difference of miR-550a-3P may be one of the reasons for the genetic susceptibility to CPSP in patients with thoracoscopic lobectomy, which needs to be confirmed by further studies in the future. More in-depth studies on potential mechanisms of CPSP development are needed for the prevention and treatment of CPSP in these patients.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Ct values of miR-146a-3P, miR-550a-3P and miR-3613-3P in CPSP group and non-CPSP group.

(TIF)

pone.0297742.s001.tif (1.5MB, tif)

Data Availability

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [ResMan Research Manager] repository, [http://www.medresman.org.cn/pub/cn/proj/projectshshow.aspx?proj=4096].

Funding Statement

This work was supported by Quanzhou City Science & Technology Program of China [Grant no: 2019N105S]. And, the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Bayman EO, Parekh KR, Keech J, Selte A, Brennan TJ. A prospective study of chronic pain after thoracic surgery. Anesthesiology. 2017;126: 938–951. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001576 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chao F, Bo H, Feng TW. Current clinical status and research progress of chronic pain after thoracic surgery. J Pract Med. 2019;35: 3725–3730. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yoon S, Hong WP, Joo H, Kim H, Park S, Bahk JH, et al. Long-term incidence of chronic postsurgical pain after thoracic surgery for lung cancer: a 10-year single-center retrospective study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2020;45: 331–336. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2020-101292 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kehlet H, Jensen TS, Woolf CJ. Persistent postsurgical pain: risk factors and prevention. Lancet. 2006. May 13;367(9522):1618–25. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68700-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hoofwijk DM, van Reij RR, Rutten BP, Kenis G, Buhre WF, Joosten EA. Genetic polymorphisms and their association with the prevalence and severity of chronic postsurgical pain: a systematic review. Br J Anaesth. 2016;117: 708–719. doi: 10.1093/bja/aew378 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Chidambaran V, Gang Y, Pilipenko V, Ashton M, Ding L. Systematic review and meta-analysis of genetic risk of developing chronic postsurgical pain. J Pain. 2020;21: 2–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2019.05.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sabina S, Panico A, Mincarone P, Leo CG, Garbarino S, Grassi T, et al. Expression and Biological Functions of miRNAs in Chronic Pain: A Review on Human Studies. Int J Mol Sci. 2022,23(11):6016. doi: 10.3390/ijms23116016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Liu JC, Xue DF, Wang XQ, Ai DB, Qin PJ. MiR-101 relates to chronic peripheral neuropathic pain through targeting KPNB1 and regulating NF-κB signaling. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2019;35: 139–145. 10.1002/kjm2.12025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Giordano R, Petersen KK, Andersen HH, Lichota J, Valeriani M, Simonsen O, et al. Preoperative serum circulating microRNAs as potential biomarkers for chronic postoperative pain after total knee replacement. Mol Pain. 2020;16: 1744806920962925. doi: 10.1177/1744806920962925 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Jin J, Du X, Min S, Liu L. Comparison of Chronic Postsurgical Pain Between Single-Port and Multi-Port Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Pulmonary Resection: A Prospective Study. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022, 70(5):430–438. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1744546 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Pellegrino A, Fabig SC, Kersebaum D, Hüllemann P, Baron R, Roch T, et al. Differential Expression of microRNAs in Serum of Patients with Chronic Painful Polyneuropathy and Healthy Age-Matched Controls. Biomedicines. 2023,11(3):764. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11030764 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Chen WC, Zhang LH, Bai YY, Liu YB, Liang JW, He HF. Nomogram prediction of chronic postsurgical pain in patients with lung adenocarcinoma after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: A prospective study. Front Surg. 2022; 9:1004205. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.1004205 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996,(12):1373–9. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00236-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ratnadiwakara M, Mohenska M, Änkö ML. Splicing factors as regulators of miRNA biogenesis–links to human disease. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2018;79: 113–122. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.10.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Jiang M, Wang Y, Wang J, Feng S, Wang X. The etiological roles of miRNAs, lncRNAs, and circRNAs in neuropathic pain: A narrative review. J Clin Lab Anal. 2022,36(8):e24592. doi: 10.1002/jcla.24592 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Majchrzak M, Brzecka A, Daroszewski C, Błasiak P, Rzechonek A, Tarasov VV, et al. Increased Pain Sensitivity in Obese Patients After Lung Cancer Surgery. Front Pharmacol. 2019. Jun 14; 10:626. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00626 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Elmallah RK, Ramkumar PN, Khlopas A, Ramkumar RR, Chughtai M, Sodhi N, et al. Postoperative Pain and Analgesia: Is There a Genetic Basis to the Opioid Crisis? Surg Technol Int. 2018. Jun 1; 32:306–314. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Jamaluddin MS, Weakley SM, Yao Q, Chen C. Resistin: functional roles and therapeutic considerations for cardiovascular disease. Br J Pharmacol. 2012. Feb;165(3):622–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01369.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hozumi J, Sumitani M, Nishizawa D, Nagashima M, Ikeda K, Abe H, et al. Resistin is a novel marker for postoperative pain intensity. Anesth Analg. 2019;128: 563–568. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003363 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kubricht V, Sevcik P. Chronic postsurgical pain in mixed surgical population. Does an acute pain service make a difference? Bratisl Lek Listy. 2017;118: 746–751. doi: 10.4149/BLL_2017_141 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zhang Y, Zhou R, Hou B, Tang S, Hao J, Gu X, et al. Incidence and risk factors for chronic postsurgical pain following video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a retrospective study. BMC Surg. 2022, 22(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s12893-022-01522-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Qing-zhi G, Fei X, Wei Z. Risk factors and prevention and control of chronic pain after thoracic surgery. Int J Anesthesiol Resusciation. 2019;40: 270–274. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Chen J, Yen A, Florian CP, Dougherty JD. MYT1L in the making: emerging insights on functions of a neurodevelopmental disorder gene. Transl Psychiatry. 2022. Jul 22;12(1):292. doi: 10.1038/s41398-022-02058-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Shi Y, Shao Q, Li Z, Gonzalez GA, Lu F, Wang D, et al. Myt1L Promotes Differentiation of Oligodendrocyte Precursor Cells and is Necessary for Remyelination After Lysolecithin-Induced Demyelination. Neurosci. Bull. 2018, 34:247–260. doi: 10.1007/s12264-018-0207-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Phạm TL, Yin Y, Kwon HH, Shin N, Kim SI, Park H, et al. miRNA 146a-5p-loaded poly(d,l-lactic-co-glycolic acid) nanoparticles impair pain behaviors by inhibiting multiple inflammatory pathways in microglia. Nanomedicine (Lond). 2020,15(11):1113–1126. https://doi.org/10.1042%2FBSR20200349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Linnstaedt SD, Walker MG, Parker JS, Yeh E, Sons RL, Zimny E, et al. MicroRNA circulating in the early aftermath of motor vehicle collision predict persistent pain development and suggest a role for microRNA in sex-specific pain differences. Mol Pain. 2015;11: 66. doi: 10.1186/s12990-015-0069-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Silvia Fiorelli

28 Jun 2023

PONE-D-23-13874Risk factors and related miRNA phenotypes of chronic pain after thoracoscopic surgery in lung adenocarcinoma patientsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. He,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Please revise the manuscript according to the reviewers suggestions, 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 12 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Silvia Fiorelli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper by He and colleagues describes the analysis of patients with adenocacinoma. Specifically, the miRNA of the patients is analysed to identify potential biomarkers.

Before the paper can be accepted, the following points should be addressed:

- The number of citations and the selected citations do not adequately reflect the current state of research. The authors should consider current literature

- A description of how pain was measured and classified is completely missing. There are several accepted standards in research. Which of these was used and what the results. This data are needed to be added. Furthermore, a correlation of these parameters with the miRNA profile should be done.

- The description of the methods is insufficient. E.g. page 7 line 123-124 "After an appropriate amount of TRIZOL ...". This is not a scientific description that allows repeating the experiments. For each experimental step, a detailed protocol should be given as stated in the Authorguidelines.

- Page 7: Construction of miRNA Library

o Number of samples is missing

o Quality control of each step is missing

o Why was the miRNA not isolated from serum?

o Which threshold for differentially expressed miRNA was chosen?

o How was "possibly greater correlation with chronic pain" determined?

- Page 8: qPCR

o Why was total RNA used for qPCR? There is a risk that the primers are not specific.

o The sequence of the reverse primer used is missing

o qPCR conditions are missing and a table containing the Ct values of the samples

- Page 8: statistical analysis

o How was the necessary sample size (number of patients) calculated?

o Information on which patients were excluded / included

Results:

- The distribution of patients between the two groups is uneven e.g. the CPSP group contains more women.

- How was it determined that differences in clinical information did not affect the data? What mathematical models were used?

- Were the data analysed by further subdividing the groups e.g. male samples only, young patients vs older patients, etc.?

Discussion:

- On page 13, line 240 it is stated that after surgery 37.9% of patients developed CPSP. What is the normal range?

- The discussion lacks any description of the biochemical function and pathways involved of the miRNAs. At least one GO annotation and appropriate discussion needs to be made

- Which miRNAs have been identified / described in patients with early adenoma carcinoma?

- Which miRNAs were identified / described in patients with chronic pain?

- The miRNA part of the discussion is a collection of known facts of the identified miRNAs but no discussion. The whole section needs to be revised.

Reviewer #2: The authors need to make it very clear that correlation does not mean causation - this is not clear.

Second, authors need to clarify whether the factors identified are correlated to each other or how the statistical/correlation analyses were performed and corrected for other co-variables.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 14;19(3):e0297742. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297742.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 Aug 2023

General response: We thank Editor and Reviewers for both the time and the insightful comments. We have carefully taken into consideration all the comments, and revised the manuscript substantially by adding analysis and clarifying content to make it more scientific and innovative. We have addressed all questions in a point-by-point manner, as shown below.

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: Thanks for your reminder and the handy link. We have read PLOS ONE Formatting guidelines carefully and made sure that our manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements as the manuscript shows.

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Response: We are very sorry for our negligence of providing the wrong the message on the 'Financial Disclosure' section. We have corrected the Financial Disclosure to make the grant information consistent in the 'Funding Information' and 'Financial Disclosure'. And we have updated the statement in our cover letter.

Reviewers’ comments

Reviewer#1

Comment No.1: The number of citations and the selected citations do not adequately reflect the current state of research. The authors should consider current literature. Response: We agree wholeheartedly that our manuscript needs to add more current literature. In the revised manuscript, we have updated the literature by replacing the older citations and adding some more recent literature to our analysis, such as Sabina S et al. (2022), Jin J et al. (2022), Chen WC et al. (2022), Jiang M et al. (2022), Zhang Y et al. (2022), Pellegrino A et al. (2023), Chen J et al. (2022) and Shi, Y et al. (2018), Phạm TL et al. (2020).

Comment No.2: A description of how pain was measured and classified is completely missing. There are several accepted standards in research. Which of these was used and what the results. This data is needed to be added.

Response: We are very grateful to the Reviewers for their constructive suggestions. We only studied whether patients had CPSP after surgery, Thus, the patients were inquired only about the worst pain intensity, pain location and their current analgesic use. We have added Chinese validated version of the BPI-SF (Brief Pain Inventory Short Form) to assess pain intensity. And the description of how pain was measured and classified has been completed. (Page 6, lines 101–116)

Comment No.3: Furthermore, a correlation of these parameters with the miRNA profile should be done.

Response: We fully agree that a correlation analysis of the parameters should be done. We performed collinearity diagnosis on all the covariables included in the regression analysis and found that the tolerance>0.2 and VIF<5. It could be considered that there was no collinearity as shown in Table 5. (page 14, Table 5)

Comment No.4: The description of the methods is insufficient. E.g., page 7 line 123-124 "After an appropriate amount of TRIZOL ...". This is not a scientific description that allows repeating the experiments. For each experimental step, a detailed protocol should be given as stated in the Author guidelines.

Response: We are very sorry for our negligence of our experimental procedure description. We have already added the description for each experimental step. (page7-10, lines 130–188)

Comment No.5: Page 7: Construction of miRNA Library

1. Number of samples is missing

2. Quality control of each step is missing

3. Why was the miRNA not isolated from serum?

4. Which threshold for differentially expressed miRNA was chosen?

5. How was "possibly greater correlation with chronic pain" determined?

Response: (For questions 1 and 5)We are sorry that we may have not expressed clearly about the number of sample and the reason for the chosen miRNAs which were possibly greater correlative with chronic pain.

Actually, three white blood cell samples from each group treated with TRIzol were randomly selected and submitted to Shanghai Europe Easy Biomedical Technology Co., Ltd., to complete the construction of a small RNA library and high-throughput sequencing. (And one case found as unqualified in quality inspection was rejected.) (page8, lines 153–157)

The steps on how to select miRNAs which are more correlative with chronic pain are as follows: Firstly, we completed the construction of a small RNA library and high-throughput sequencing. Secondly, we detected a total of 24 differentially expressed miRNAs (p-value<0.05&|log2FC|>1). Thirdly, we selected three miRNAs with obvious differential expression through atlas analysis and literature search [6,8]. And the above expression has been placed in the ‘Construction of a small RNA library and high-throughput sequencing’ section. (page8, lines 153–164)

(For question 2)We fully agree that the quality control for each step should be supplemented. We have added quality control to the extracted total RNA (page8, lines 148–150,155-157) and the PCR detection (page9, lines 183–185).

(For question 3)It is really true as Reviewer mentioned that the miRNA we got was not from serum. Because the miRNA in serum may come from both intracellular and extracellular sources, such as red and white blood cells. The amount of miRNA directly extracted from cells will be more. Moreover, one of the mechanisms leading to chronic pain is inflammation, and white blood cells are closely related to inflammation, so we chose white blood cells to extract miRNA to study the expression difference between the two groups.

(For question 4)We are grateful to the Reviewer for the reminder. Actually, the threshold for differentially expressed miRNA was p-value<0.05 and |log2FC|>1. (page8, line 159).

Comment No.6: Page 8: qPCR

o Why was total RNA used for qPCR? There is a risk that the primers are not specific.

o The sequence of the reverse primer used is missing

o qPCR conditions are missing and a table containing the Ct values of the samples

Response: We very much appreciate the Reviewer’s valuable comments and suggestions. The design and synthesis of primer sequences for the three miRNAs were specific which can be found in Table 1 of the text. And the reverse primers came with kits, but we are sorry that the reverse sequences couldn’t be provided due to confidentiality of the other party. We have added complete qPCR conditions. (page9-10, lines 169–188) And the Ct values of all the samples have been provided in S1 Table.

Comment No.7: statistical analysis

o How was the necessary sample size (number of patients) calculated?

o Information on which patients were excluded / included

Response: We are very grateful to the Reviewer for the constructive suggestions. We have added detailed basis for sample size calculation, and list them separately in the "Sample size" section. (page10, lines 191–201) And we have placed the included / excluded criteria in the’ Patients and inclusion criteria’ section. (page4, lines 60–69)

Comment No.8: Results:

- The distribution of patients between the two groups is uneven e.g., the CPSP group contains more women.

- How was it determined that differences in clinical information did not affect the data? What mathematical models were used?

- Were the data analysed by further subdividing the groups e.g., male samples only, young patients vs older patients, etc.?

Response: Thanks for Reviewer’s questions. We aimed to explore the risk factors relating to chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP). And the patients were divided into two groups (non-CPSP and CPSP) according to the presence or absence of CPSP. Therefore, there existed some differences in clinical information which were the variables we were looking for. It is really true that the CPSP group contains more women, but there are no significant differences in sex between the two groups. If there was a significant difference, then we would include it in the regression analysis to determine the risk factor.

Comment No.9: Discussion:

- On page 13, line 240 it is stated that after surgery 37.9% of patients developed CPSP. What is the normal range?

- The discussion lacks any description of the biochemical function and pathways involved of the miRNAs. At least one GO annotation and appropriate discussion needs to be made

- Which miRNAs have been identified / described in patients with early adenoma carcinoma?

- Which miRNAs were identified / described in patients with chronic pain?

- The miRNA part of the discussion is a collection of known facts of the identified miRNAs but no discussion. The whole section needs to be revised.

Response: We very much appreciate the Reviewer’s valuable comments and suggestions. According to the literature, the incidence of CPSP after thoracic surgery is 25-75%. (Chen WC, Bai YY, Zhang LH, et al. Prevalence and Predictors of Chronic Postsurgical Pain After Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Pain , 2023,12(1):117-139. doi: 10.1007/s40122-022-00439-0.)And we have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion. (page15,16,17)

Reviewer#2

Comment: The authors need to make it very clear that correlation does not mean causation - this is not clear.

Second, authors need to clarify whether the factors identified are correlated to each other or how the statistical/correlation analyses were performed and corrected for other co-variables.

Response: We very much appreciate the Reviewer’s valuable comments and suggestions. We fully agree that correlation does not mean causation. We have performed collinearity diagnosis on all the covariables included in the regression analysis and found that the tolerance>0.2 and VIF<5. It could be considered that there was no collinearity as shown in Table 5. (page 14, Table 5)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

pone.0297742.s002.doc (48KB, doc)

Decision Letter 1

Silvia Fiorelli

4 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-13874R1Risk factors and related miRNA phenotypes of chronic pain after thoracoscopic surgery in lung adenocarcinoma patientsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. He,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:please carefully assess all the reviewers comments

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 18 2023 11:59PM  If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Silvia Fiorelli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: This is a poorly designed study and I am not convinced that the data shown supports the claims stated in the manuscript. The responses to reviewers are vague and either miss the point or are just lightly addressed. The figures are very rudimentary and no QC plots are shown. Analyses performed are very basic and further extensive analysis are required, for instance pathway analysis. Introduction is smaller than abstract and the reasoning behind study is not comprehensively described, hence, the rationale behind the study is not clear to me. Additionally, a diagram with the workflow and inclusion/exclusion, study design/timeline would be helpful.

My main concerns are as follow:

1) the authors conclude that preoperative BMI, preoperative expression level of miR-550a-3P in peripheral blood, preoperative history of chronic pain, and postoperative NRS score are risk factors for CPSP. However, do they mean all these factors need to be present? again, the authors do not clarify that correlation does not mean causation.

2) following the questions above, The authors suggest that miR-550a-3P can be a target for post surgical pain. Would that by itself be able to prevent pain? To make this claim, authors need to perform statistical tests or experimental validation using in vitro or in vivo models.

3) the authors mention that preoperative history of chronic pain is one of the factors for development of surgical pain. This is not novel and corroborated by several other studies in the literature. Would this factor by itself influence development of CPSP? Would targeting mir-550a-3P be sufficient to counteract all the other risk factors?

4) Wouldn't it be enough to know preoperative BMI and preoperative history of chronic pain and postoperative NRS to make a patient at risk of developing pain? If the rationale is that patients will need to go through surgery anyway because of cancer, and mir-550a could be a target for treating/preventing pain - then the authors needs to show actual data that backs up this claim. Additionally, this is not clear from the beginning why look at microRNAs. I do not see how relevant it is to know that mir-550a in peripheral blood is a risk factor for CPSP if the other risk factors are predictive by themselves.

5) this sentence "Inhibition of miR-550a-3P may serve as a novel therapeutic target for chronic pain after lung adenocarcinoma occurrence" is not supported by evidence shown in the manuscript.

6) We also know from literature (see for instance Kehlet H, Jensen TS, Woolf CJ. Persistent postsurgical pain: risk factors and prevention. The lancet. 2006 May 13;367(9522):1618-25.) that genetic factors can play an important role. did the authors consider that and how do they address genetic factors in the context of the claims of this paper?

7) Authors do not address surgical technique, (or different surgeons?) - this can be a factor that influences development of pain as different techniques can target nerve fibers more

8) Inclusion/exclusion criteria do not mention pain immediately prior to surgery, which is a huge flaw of this study. Was this included under "4. Absence of nervous system dysfunction"? This is a very vague term and does not really clarify what factors contribute to it.

9) Authors did not look at pathway analysis associated with microRNAs, simply described previous literature in the Discussion.

Reviewer #3: Dear authors, here you receive my comment on the manuscript with the title ” Risk factors and related miRNA phenotypes of chronic pain after thoracoscopic surgery in lung adenocarcinoma patients “ and registration number PONE-D-23-13874.

The article is well written in understandable English. As displayed in the Methods the study with the registration number : Chi CTR2200057092 may be found in the ChiCTR database, although with slightly different title. Registration number, i.e., The risk factors and relative miRNA phenotypic analysis of chronic pain following lung adenocarcinoma surgery under VATS. As well as the site, which can be easily accessed: “http://www. medresman.org/. The authors present the results of a prospective study in 289 patients with focus on the possible relation between various risk factors among which are also possible genetic predisposition and the risk for the development of chronic pain after VATS in patients with lung carcinoma.

57 patients (=19.7%) were excluded by application of the exclusion criteria.

Did you analyze in any way how these excluded patients could have influenced your results?

Why were complications such as pulmonary complication, which is a very broad definition, and re-hospitalization both exclusion criteria? You could expect that persistent pain with secondary effects also could be one of the pulmonary complications or leading to a complication and resulting in re-hospitalization. Please comment?

Please check and comment or discuss the possible reference for miRNA’s: Sabina S, et al. Expression and Biological Functions of miRNAs in Chronic Pain: A Review on Human Studies. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 May 27;23(11):6016. doi: 10.3390/ijms23116016. PMID: 35682695; PMCID: PMC9181121. Could you explain why from all the possible miRNA’s that are in any way linked to chronic pain you chose mi R-146-3P and the other 2? This should be described more precisely in the methods?

This may provide further support as to why you chose these specific mi-RNAs and why certainly not other MiRNAs.

P4 regarding absence of nervous system disfunction: What is the definition? Were patients with preoperative well treated anxiety disorder, for instance with benzodiazepines also included or actually excluded?

P 6 regarding the statement about oxycodone sustained-release tablets: Besides the administration of these tablets twice a day, normally this is combined with the short acting opioids 4-6 times orally a day. Was this also normal procedure in your study?

P 6 last sentence “awake”: how was being awake scored?

Were there any differences in final malignancy regarding the pathological final diagnoses regarding type of differentiation of the tumour, radicality of surgical resection, primary, metastatic. See for instance, differences between smokers, non-smokers who have quit smoking and the incidence of adenocarcinoma of the lung in these patients. Furthermore, there appears to be differences in smokers vs non-smokers in relation to the development of pain (CPSP) and gene up- or down regulation. How did this may have influenced your results?

P10 table 2 did the patients have a history of smoking or quit smoking or were non-smokers?

Operation duration may be a surrogate for complexity of the procedure or tissue damage with p 0.09. Could this be related, actually the result of not being significant, to study power? Please discuss?

Were any other parameters that possibly display tissue damage or host response (e.g. inflammation) such as differences in CRP on days 1 or 2 among groups measured as you only illustrate white blood cell counts here? This is very scarse.

See regarding molecular differences within the adenocarcinoma of the lung, among others, e.g., Solis LM, et al. Histologic patterns and molecular characteristics of lung adenocarcinoma associated with clinical outcome. Cancer. 2012 Jun 1;118(11):2889-99. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26584. Epub 2011 Oct 21. PMID: 22020674; PMCID: PMC3369269. There seems to be a difference and also in outcome? Did you take this histologic difference into account?

And also among others regarding smokers and pain e.g. Oh TK, et al. Relationship between pain outcomes and smoking history following video-assisted thoracic surgery for lobectomy: a retrospective study. J Pain Res. 2018 Apr 6;11:667-673. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S157957. PMID: 29670393; PMCID: PMC5896682. How was this aspect present in your population?

See also Yoon S, Hong W, Joo H, et al. Long-term incidence of chronic postsurgical pain after thoracic surgery for lung cancer: a 10-year single-center retrospective study. Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2020;45:331-336. Here of a total of 3200 patients included in the analysis, 459 (14.3%) and 558 (17.4%) patients were diagnosed with CPSP within 3 and 36 months after surgery, respectively.

Were there any differences in duration of the ESP-block between patients or patients with failed blockade in relation to the development of pain during day 1-3 and the need for rescue medication. Please compare when possible lowest quartile vs highest quartile in the use of opioids or other analgesics?

P 7 regarding the description to hemolyze the blood cells. Please describe procedure more in detail briefly? Could it be that blood was aspirated 5-10 times fast through a very small needle to induce hemolysis in combination with the anticoagulant?

Extraction of total RNA: here both brief description of the process and reference is needed?

You mention the resistin in adipose tissue in relation to pain development. See, e.g. Majchrzak M, et al. Increased Pain Sensitivity in Obese Patients After Lung Cancer Surgery. Front Pharmacol. 2019 Jun 14;10:626. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00626. PMID: 31258474; PMCID: PMC6586739. What can be said by the possibility of genetic polymorphism altering sensitivity to pain and how it may have played an important role in CPSP development in the patients of your study regarding chronic pain might related both to obesity?

and differences in gene expression? Please comment and discuss? See: Hozumi J., et al. Resistin Is a Novel Marker for Postoperative Pain Intensity. Anesthesia & Analgesia 128(3):p 563-568, March 2019. | DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003363

Textual

Provide legend for figures and explain what should be seen for our readers and what is visible and focus on the most striking features and differences between groups in the figures. Furthermore discuss these observations within the discussion in combination with chosen important references?

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: p.bruins

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 14;19(3):e0297742. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297742.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


17 Nov 2023

General response: We thank Editor and Reviewers for both the time and the insightful comments. We have carefully taken into consideration all the comments, and revised the manuscript substantially by adding analysis and clarifying content to make it more scientific and innovative. We have addressed all questions in a point-by-point manner, as shown below.

Reviewers’ comments

Reviewer#1 (No Comment)

Reviewer#2

General comments: The figures are very rudimentary and no QC plots are shown. Analyses performed are very basic and further extensive analysis are required, for instance pathway analysis. Introduction is smaller than abstract and the reasoning behind study is not comprehensively described, hence, the rationale behind the study is not clear to me. Additionally, a diagram with the workflow and inclusion/exclusion, study design/timeline would be helpful.

Response:

We are very grateful to the Reviewer for the constructive suggestions. We have added ROC curve for the CPSP model, and found that the prediction probability for CPSP after VATS yield the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.781 (95% CI 0.718–0.844) (Figure 5.). Thanks to Reviewer 's reminder, we have added a diagram with workflow (Figure 3.).

We have revised the "Introduction" part and listed our research purpose at the end: The primary aim of this study was to identify independently predictors of CPSP after VATS. The second aim was to search for miRNA predictors of CPSP in peripheral blood, so as to provide directions for further research on the pathogenesis and development of CPSP.

We are very sorry for the lack of pathway analysis in our clinical study. In the study, we only found several clinical risk factors for the development of CPSP and one peripheral blood microRNA indicator, and the specific mechanism needs further study in the future.

Main comments:

Comment No.1: the authors conclude that preoperative BMI, preoperative expression level of miR-550a-3P in peripheral blood, preoperative history of chronic pain, and postoperative NRS score are risk factors for CPSP. However, do they mean all these factors need to be present? again, the authors do not clarify that correlation does not mean causation.

Response:

In this study, regression analysis was used to find several risk factors for CPSP, and collinearity diagnosis showed that there was no collinearity among these risk factors. They are independent for predicting the occurrence of CPSP, and do not need to present simultaneously.

We are very sorry that we failed to understand the point made by the reviewer in the first comments that correlation does not mean causation. Is it because we have not conducted further extensive analysis of miR-550a-3P to determine the causal relationship between miR-550a-3P and CPSP, but we presented some inappropriate expressions in the summary at the end of the "Discussion"? With this in mind, we have replaced " Inhibition of miR-550a-3P may serve as a novel therapeutic target for chronic pain after lung adenocarcinoma occurrence." with " The expression difference of miR-550a-3P may be one of the reasons for the genetic susceptibility to CPSP in patients with thoracoscopic lobectomy, which needs to be confirmed by further studies in the future.".

Comment No.2: following the questions above, The authors suggest that miR-550a-3P can be a target for post surgical pain. Would that by itself be able to prevent pain? To make this claim, authors need to perform statistical tests or experimental validation using in vitro or in vivo models.

Response: Given the complexity of post-surgical pain, many genes might contribute. MiR-550a-3P may only be one of the related factors. We regret that no corresponding experimental validation has been carried out.

Comment No.3: the authors mention that preoperative history of chronic pain is one of the factors for development of surgical pain. This is not novel and corroborated by several other studies in the literature. Would this factor by itself influence development of CPSP? Would targeting mir-550a-3P be sufficient to counteract all the other risk factors?

Response:

Logistic regression analysis showed that preoperative history of chronic is the risk factor for the occurrence of CPSP, and collinearity diagnosis on all the covariables included in the regression analysis showed there was no collinearity. We believe that the preoperative history of chronic pain may influence the development of CPSP by itself.

Given the complexity of post-surgical pain, many genes might contribute. In this study, we controlled some perioperative factors which may affect the occurrence of CPSP to search for CPSP susceptible population and find more closely related and more predictive genetic factors. So, expression difference of miR-550a-3P obtained in the study can well reflect the influence of genetic susceptibility on the occurrence of CPSP, but targeting mir-550a-3P alone would not be sufficient to counteract all the risk factors. (E.g. preoperative erector spinae plane block was performed to reduce the degree of acute postoperative pain. The difference of white blood cells before and after the operation did not have statistical significance could exclude the effect of postoperative infection on CPSP. All patients with early lung adenocarcinoma as their pathological diagnosis underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy without lymph node dissection by the same group of surgeons. page 17)

Comment No.4: Wouldn't it be enough to know preoperative BMI and preoperative history of chronic pain and postoperative NRS to make a patient at risk of developing pain? If the rationale is that patients will need to go through surgery anyway because of cancer, and mir-550a could be a target for treating/preventing pain - then the authors needs to show actual data that backs up this claim. Additionally, this is not clear from the beginning why look at microRNAs. I do not see how relevant it is to know that mir-550a in peripheral blood is a risk factor for CPSP if the other risk factors are predictive by themselves.

Response: We are sorry that we did not clearly state the purpose of our research in "Introduction" at the beginning. And we have listed our research purpose at the end: The primary aim of this study was to identify independently predictors of CPSP after VATS. The second aim was to search for miRNA predictors of CPSP in peripheral blood, so as to provide directions for further research on the pathogenesis and development of CPSP.

Comment No.5: this sentence "Inhibition of miR-550a-3P may serve as a novel therapeutic target for chronic pain after lung adenocarcinoma occurrence" is not supported by evidence shown in the manuscript.

Response: We are grateful to the Reviewer for the reminder. We have replaced this sentence with " The expression difference of miR-550a-3P may be one of the reasons for the genetic susceptibility to CPSP in patients with thoracoscopic lobectomy, which needs to be confirmed by further studies in the future.".

Comment No.6: We also know from literature (see for instance Kehlet H, Jensen TS, Woolf CJ. Persistent postsurgical pain: risk factors and prevention. The lancet. 2006 May 13;367(9522):1618-25.) that genetic factors can play an important role. did the authors consider that and how do they address genetic factors in the context of the claims of this paper?

Response: Thanks for the paper provided by Reviewer. We read the review carefully, the article gives a brief description of the genetic factors. So far, several genes have been found to be associated with chronic pain, but the specific mechanism is still unclear.

Comment No.7: Authors do not address surgical technique, (or different surgeons?) - this can be a factor that influences development of pain as different techniques can target nerve fibers more.

Response: Thanks to the Reviewer for the reminder. We've added a description to "Methods". (Page 4, line 61…underwent thoracoscopic lobotomy without lymph node dissection by the same group of surgeons…)

Comment No.8: Inclusion/exclusion criteria do not mention pain immediately prior to surgery, which is a huge flaw of this study. Was this included under "4. Absence of nervous system dysfunction"? This is a very vague term and does not really clarify what factors contribute to it.

Response: We very much appreciate the Reviewer’s valuable comments and suggestions. We have added "No peripheral (somatic) or internal (visceral) chest pain before surgery" to the inclusion criteria, and replaced "Absence of nervous system dysfunction" with "Absence of peripheral neuropathy". (Page 4, lines 67,68)

Comment No.9: Authors did not look at pathway analysis associated with microRNAs, simply described previous literature in the Discussion.

Response: We very much appreciate the Reviewer’s comments. We have revised the discussion. Again, we are sorry about the lack of pathway analysis associated with microRNAs.

Reviewer#3

Comment No.1: Did you analyze in any way how these excluded patients could have influenced your results?

Why were complications such as pulmonary complication, which is a very broad definition, and re-hospitalization both exclusion criteria? You could expect that persistent pain with secondary effects also could be one of the pulmonary complications or leading to a complication and resulting in re-hospitalization. Please comment?

Response: We are very grateful to the Reviewers for their recognition of the manuscript and their constructive comments. The exclusion criteria have been reviewed and revised. (Page 4, lines 69-74) And the reasons for the selection of exclusion criteria were explained in the discussion. (Page 17, lines 295-301)

Comment No.2: Please check and comment or discuss the possible reference for miRNA’s: Sabina S, et al. Expression and Biological Functions of miRNAs in Chronic Pain: A Review on Human Studies. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 May 27;23(11):6016. doi: 10.3390/ijms23116016. PMID: 35682695; PMCID: PMC9181121. Could you explain why from all the possible miRNA’s that are in any way linked to chronic pain you chose miR-146-3P and the other 2? This should be described more precisely in the methods?

This may provide further support as to why you chose these specific mi-RNAs and why certainly not other MiRNAs.

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's suggestions. We have reviewed the reference for miRNA's: Sabina S, et al. and described the reasons for selecting mi-RNAs more precisely in the methods. (Page 9, lines 167-173)

Comment No.3: P4 regarding absence of nervous system disfunction: What is the definition? Were patients with preoperative well treated anxiety disorder, for instance with benzodiazepines also included or actually excluded?

Response: We are very sorry for our negligence, the expression of "absence of nervous system disfunction" in the inclusion criteria was wrong, we have changed it to "Absence of peripheral neuropathy". (Page 4, line 67)

Comment No.4: P6 regarding the statement about oxycodone sustained-release tablets: Besides the administration of these tablets twice a day, normally this is combined with the short acting opioids 4-6 times orally a day. Was this also normal procedure in your study?

P 6 last sentence “awake”: how was being awake scored?

Response: Thanks for Reviewer’s questions. In the study, patients were connected to intravenous analgesia pumps containing sufentanil after surgery, and oxycodone sustained-release tablets were given when patients still felt severe pain. No short acting opioids were added again. (Page 6, lines 101-104) Thanks to the reviewer's reminder, we have added the score of "awake" (with full Steward score). (Page 6, line 104)

Comment No.5: Were there any differences in final malignancy regarding the pathological final diagnoses regarding type of differentiation of the tumour, radicality of surgical resection, primary, metastatic. See for instance, differences between smokers, non-smokers who have quit smoking and the incidence of adenocarcinoma of the lung in these patients. Furthermore, there appears to be differences in smokers vs non-smokers in relation to the development of pain (CPSP) and gene up- or down regulation. How did this may have influenced your results?

P10 table 2 did the patients have a history of smoking or quit smoking or were non-smokers?

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's reminder and questions. Yes, of all the observed patients, 5 patients had different results in the final pathological diagnosis and were excluded. For clarity, we have added a separate item to the exclusion criteria for it. (Page 4, lines 70,71)

Indeed, it has been reported in the literatures that smoking status may be associated with CPSP. We re-included smoking history in the univariate analysis, but found no statistical difference between the CPSP group and non-CPSP group (P=0.212). Therefore, we no longer included smoking history in the regression analysis. (Table 2)

Comment No.6: Operation duration may be a surrogate for complexity of the procedure or tissue damage with p 0.09. Could this be related, actually the result of not being significant, to study power? Please discuss?

Were any other parameters that possibly display tissue damage or host response (e.g. inflammation) such as differences in CRP on days 1 or 2 among groups measured as you only illustrate white blood cell counts here? This is very scarse.

Response: We are very grateful to the Reviewer for the valuable comments. Considering that operation duration is likely to be related to CPSP, we adjusted the P-value limit (changed to P<0.10) and included operation duration in regression analysis. Analysis results showed that operation duration was not a risk factor for CPSP(P=0.221). (Pages 14-16, lines 261-264, Table 6)

As mentioned by Reviewers, CRP could display inflammation. And many related studies have also conducted comparative analysis on it. But unfortunately, we missed this one in our study, which is the deficiency.

Comment No.7: See regarding molecular differences within the adenocarcinoma of the lung, among others, e.g., Solis LM, et al. Histologic patterns and molecular characteristics of lung adenocarcinoma associated with clinical outcome. Cancer. 2012 Jun 1;118(11):2889-99. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26584. Epub 2011 Oct 21. PMID: 22020674; PMCID: PMC3369269. There seems to be a difference and also in outcome? Did you take this histologic difference into account?

Response: Thanks for the literature recommended by reviewers, we have read it carefully. Whether histologic patterns and molecular characteristics of lung adenocarcinoma are related to the occurrence of CPSP is worthy of further study and analysis. At present, according to exclusion criteria 3, 4, and 5, we have excluded patients with poor prognosis or who require special treatment.

Comment No.8: And also among others regarding smokers and pain e.g. Oh TK, et al. Relationship between pain outcomes and smoking history following video-assisted thoracic surgery for lobectomy: a retrospective study. J Pain Res. 2018 Apr 6;11:667-673. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S157957. PMID: 29670393; PMCID: PMC5896682. How was this aspect present in your population?

See also Yoon S, Hong W, Joo H, et al. Long-term incidence of chronic postsurgical pain after thoracic surgery for lung cancer: a 10-year single-center retrospective study. Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2020;45:331-336. Here of a total of 3200 patients included in the analysis, 459 (14.3%) and 558 (17.4%) patients were diagnosed with CPSP within 3 and 36 months after surgery, respectively.

Were there any differences in duration of the ESP-block between patients or patients with failed blockade in relation to the development of pain during day 1-3 and the need for rescue medication. Please compare when possible lowest quartile vs highest quartile in the use of opioids or other analgesics?

Response: Thanks for the literatures recommended by reviewers. The first study showed that smoking history was not associated with postoperative pain scores, but was associated with morphine equivalent analgesics (mg) on postoperative days of 0-2. Consider that smoking history may be related to CPSP, we re-included smoking history in the univariate analysis, but found no statistical difference between the CPSP group and non-CPSP group (P=0.212). Therefore, we no longer included smoking history in the regression analysis. (Table 2)

Thanks for the reviewer's reminder and questions. The effect of nerve block may affect the development of postoperative pain. Therefore, we would test the exact effect of the ESP-block after completion. (Page 5, lines 92-95) And, failure to block would be excluded. (Exclusion criteria, page 4, line 74)

Thanks for the reviewer's suggestions. We compared the dosage of sufentanil, remifentanil and dexmedetomidine per kilogram during anesthesia. The results showed no statistical difference between CPSP group and non-CPSP group. (Table 2) Rescue medication was associated with postoperative NRS score. However, no correlation was allowed between the covariables included in the regression analysis, so we did not make additional comparison in rescue medication.

Comment No.9: P7 regarding the description to hemolyze the blood cells. Please describe procedure more in detail briefly? Could it be that blood was aspirated 5-10 times fast through a very small needle to induce hemolysis in combination with the anticoagulant?

Extraction of total RNA: here both brief description of the process and reference is needed?

Response: We very much appreciate the Reviewer’s reminder and have added the corresponding description. (Page 7, lines 137,138)

We are sorry that we did not quite understand the comments about the "Extraction of total RNA". We have described the whole process of Extraction of total RNA in the manuscript. (Pages 7-8, lines 144-157) And total RNA was extracted from white cells using mirVanaTM RNA Isolation Kit according to the manufacturer’s specifications. So, no more references were provided.

Comment No.10: You mention the resistin in adipose tissue in relation to pain development. See, e.g. Majchrzak M, et al. Increased Pain Sensitivity in Obese Patients After Lung Cancer Surgery. Front Pharmacol. 2019 Jun 14;10:626. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00626. PMID: 31258474; PMCID: PMC6586739. What can be said by the possibility of genetic polymorphism altering sensitivity to pain and how it may have played an important role in CPSP development in the patients of your study regarding chronic pain might related both to obesity?

and differences in gene expression? Please comment and discuss? See: Hozumi J., et al. Resistin Is a Novel Marker for Postoperative Pain Intensity. Anesthesia & Analgesia 128(3):p 563-568, March 2019. | DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003363

Response: We very much appreciate the Reviewer’s valuable comments. And we have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion. (page18, lines 319-326)

Comment No.11: Textual

Provide legend for figures and explain what should be seen for our readers and what is visible and focus on the most striking features and differences between groups in the figures. Furthermore, discuss these observations within the discussion in combination with chosen important references?

Response: Thanks for the reviewer's suggestion. We have presented two main resulting diagrams in the manuscript (Figure 4 and Figure 5), and explained the striking features and differences between groups in the figures. (page15, lines 266-274) And, we have revised the discussion according to the Reviewer’s suggestion.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

pone.0297742.s003.doc (66.5KB, doc)

Decision Letter 2

Silvia Fiorelli

12 Jan 2024

Risk factors and related miRNA phenotypes of chronic pain after thoracoscopic surgery in lung adenocarcinoma patients

PONE-D-23-13874R2

Dear Dr. He,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Silvia Fiorelli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Congratulations to the authors and thanks to the reviewers for the provided suggestions which really helped improve the quality of the manuscript

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: Dear authors,

here you receive my comment on the manuscript with the title ” Risk factors and related miRNA phenotypes of chronic pain after thoracoscopic surgery in lung adenocarcinoma patients “ and registration number PONE-D-23-13874R2.

The article is well written in understandable English. You have adequately addressed all my previous comments. I have no further comments.

Reviewer #4: The authors have responded to prior comments in an appropriate, informative manner, we appreciate that. The added diagrams/figures have enhanced the manuscript.

-

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Silvia Fiorelli

3 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-13874R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. He,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Silvia Fiorelli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Ct values of miR-146a-3P, miR-550a-3P and miR-3613-3P in CPSP group and non-CPSP group.

    (TIF)

    pone.0297742.s001.tif (1.5MB, tif)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

    pone.0297742.s002.doc (48KB, doc)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

    pone.0297742.s003.doc (66.5KB, doc)

    Data Availability Statement

    The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [ResMan Research Manager] repository, [http://www.medresman.org.cn/pub/cn/proj/projectshshow.aspx?proj=4096].


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES