PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To assess the validity of neuropathy and neuropathic pain-measurement approaches. DESIGN: Cross-sectional measurement study. SETTING: Two comprehensive cancer centers in the northeastern United States. SAMPLE: 117 patients with cancer in an outpatient setting. METHODS: Participants were assessed using the five-component Total Neuropathy Score-reduced (TNSr), the TNSr short form (TNSr-SF), individual TNSr items, the Neuropathic Pain Scale for chemotherapy-induced neuropathy (NPS-CIN), and the National Cancer Institute's Common Toxicity Criteria™, version 3.0 (NCI-CTC). MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Neuropathy and pain measure scores, cumulative and per M2 chemotherapy dosage, comorbid risk factors, drug class, and the number of neurotoxic drugs received. FINDINGS: TNSr, TNSr-SF, and tendon reflex scores were greater in patients receiving higher cumulative (z range = -2.2 to -3.6; p range = 0.01 to < 0.001) and per M2 (z range = -1.8 to -2.4; p range = 0.04 to < 0.001) chemotherapy doses. Scores from most neuropathy and pain measures were higher in patients with comorbid illnesses (z range = -1.79 to -3.51; p range = 0.03 to < 0.001). Sensory NCI-CTC scores were higher in patients receiving higher cumulative chemotherapy dosage (z = -2.1; p = 0.02). Only the sensory NCI-CTC correlated with other measures (r range = 0.22-0.63; p range = 0.05 to < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the validity of the TNSr, TNSr-SF, tendon reflex item, NPS-CIN, and NCI-CTC sensory grading scale when measuring taxane and platinum-induced neuropathy. However, additional validity testing is warranted. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Comprehensive neuropathy and pain measures mainly used by researchers and neurologists were simplified to more clinically useful tools for use by nurses when monitoring chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.
PURPOSE/ OBJECTIVES: To assess the validity of neuropathy and neuropathic pain-measurement approaches. DESIGN: Cross-sectional measurement study. SETTING: Two comprehensive cancer centers in the northeastern United States. SAMPLE: 117 patients with cancer in an outpatient setting. METHODS:Participants were assessed using the five-component Total Neuropathy Score-reduced (TNSr), the TNSr short form (TNSr-SF), individual TNSr items, the Neuropathic Pain Scale for chemotherapy-induced neuropathy (NPS-CIN), and the National Cancer Institute's Common Toxicity Criteria™, version 3.0 (NCI-CTC). MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Neuropathy and pain measure scores, cumulative and per M2 chemotherapy dosage, comorbid risk factors, drug class, and the number of neurotoxic drugs received. FINDINGS: TNSr, TNSr-SF, and tendon reflex scores were greater in patients receiving higher cumulative (z range = -2.2 to -3.6; p range = 0.01 to < 0.001) and per M2 (z range = -1.8 to -2.4; p range = 0.04 to < 0.001) chemotherapy doses. Scores from most neuropathy and pain measures were higher in patients with comorbid illnesses (z range = -1.79 to -3.51; p range = 0.03 to < 0.001). Sensory NCI-CTC scores were higher in patients receiving higher cumulative chemotherapy dosage (z = -2.1; p = 0.02). Only the sensory NCI-CTC correlated with other measures (r range = 0.22-0.63; p range = 0.05 to < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the validity of the TNSr, TNSr-SF, tendon reflex item, NPS-CIN, and NCI-CTC sensory grading scale when measuring taxane and platinum-induced neuropathy. However, additional validity testing is warranted. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Comprehensive neuropathy and pain measures mainly used by researchers and neurologists were simplified to more clinically useful tools for use by nurses when monitoring chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.
Authors: Ellen M Lavoie Smith; Herbert Pang; Constance Cirrincione; Stewart Fleishman; Electra D Paskett; Tim Ahles; Linda R Bressler; Camilo E Fadul; Chetaye Knox; Nguyet Le-Lindqwister; Paul B Gilman; Charles L Shapiro Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: W Iris Zhi; Patricia Chen; Alice Kwon; Connie Chen; Steven E Harte; Lauren Piulson; Susan Li; Sujata Patil; Jun J Mao; Ting Bao Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-08-27 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: J Matt McCrary; David Goldstein; Frances Boyle; Keith Cox; Peter Grimison; Matthew C Kiernan; Arun V Krishnan; Craig R Lewis; Kate Webber; Sally Baron-Hay; Lisa Horvath; Susanna B Park Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Grace A Kanzawa-Lee; Robert Knoerl; Clare Donohoe; Celia M Bridges; Ellen M Lavoie Smith Journal: Semin Oncol Nurs Date: 2019-04-30 Impact factor: 2.315
Authors: Delma Aurélia da Silva Simão; Antônio Lúcio Teixeira; Raissa Silva Souza; Elenice Dias Ribeiro de Paula Lima Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jodi L Skiles; ChienWei Chiang; Claire H Li; Steve Martin; Ellen L Smith; Gilbert Olbara; David R Jones; Terry A Vik; Saskia Mostert; Floor Abbink; Gertjan J Kaspers; Lang Li; Festus Njuguna; Tammy J Sajdyk; Jamie L Renbarger Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Tito R Mendoza; Xin Shelley Wang; Loretta A Williams; Qiuling Shi; Elisabeth G Vichaya; Patrick M Dougherty; Sheeba K Thomas; Emre Yucel; Christel C Bastida; Jeanie F Woodruff; Charles S Cleeland Journal: J Pain Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 5.820