That's what I gathered. The original study (and risk) applied to gabapentin, which has not been approved for pain either, yet is still a first-line treatment for a number of neuropathic pain conditions which it has not been approved for.

Regarding the cancer risk, the paper also goes on to add:
From what I've gleaned from this article and others, it seems to boil down to gabapentin and gabapentin enacarbil having virtually the same risks.

What I read is that gabapentin enacarbil is a form of gabapentin with increased bioavailability with both immediate and extended (sustained) release formulations.
http://jcp.sagepub.com/content/48/12/1378

Horizant® is an extended (sustained) release form of gabapentin enacarbil.
http://www.medilexicon.com/drugs/horizant.php

I wasn't wondering so much about immediate vs. sustained release, but about the increased bioavailability (in part concerning people with absorption issues - e.g. IBD). If, for example, someone with PN who was taking 1800 mg. of gabapentin/day could get the same benefit from only 300 mg. of gabapentin enacarbil, might the associated risks, side effects, tolerance, etc. be reduced as well? (Proportionally reduced risk might also sway the argument for FDA approval.) Might the more bioavailable form work for someone whom gabapentin did not? Also, since the analgesic benefits of gabapentin "top out" at a certain level (beyond which higher doses don't yield appreciable benefit), might that limitation be modified to the patient's advantage? (I'm lacking the words to say that properly at the moment... )

The questions are rhetorical at this time, but yes, I'd be interested in any feedback from people who'd tried it. The whole concept of prodrugs seems intriguing on several levels.

I reluctantly agree we'll have to wait. Perhaps a similar prodrug version of pregabalin or something else.... Anything to increase efficacy, reduce adverse effects/risks, ameliorate the suffering....

Doc