J Matt McCrary1, David Goldstein1, Frances Boyle2, Keith Cox3, Peter Grimison2,4, Matthew C Kiernan5, Arun V Krishnan1, Craig R Lewis1, Kate Webber1, Sally Baron-Hay6, Lisa Horvath2,4,7, Susanna B Park8,9. 1. Prince of Wales Clinical School, UNSW Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia. 2. Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. 3. Sydney Nursing School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. 4. Chris O'Brien Lifehouse, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia. 5. Brain & Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, 94-100 Mallett Street, Camperdown, Sydney, NSW, 2050, Australia. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, NSW, 2065, Australia. 7. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, 2050, Australia. 8. Prince of Wales Clinical School, UNSW Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia. Susanna.park@sydney.edu.au. 9. Brain & Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, 94-100 Mallett Street, Camperdown, Sydney, NSW, 2050, Australia. Susanna.park@sydney.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a prominent side effect of the treatment of cancer. Despite this frequent complication, there has been no comprehensive review and quality appraisal of CIPN assessments. The purpose of this study is to provide a definitive quality appraisal of CIPN assessment strategies for clinical use. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified through database searches of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane. CIPN assessment strategies from included articles were extracted and initially rated by an oncologist and neurophysiologist according to criteria related to assessment depth, comprehensiveness, appropriateness, and reliability. The six highest scoring assessment strategies were the focus of a two-round Delphi survey of a working party of 32 physicians, nurses, and consumers to achieve consensus on the highest rated assessments for each criterion. RESULTS: The database search yielded 117 distinct CIPN assessments that were extracted from 2373 articles. Three patient-reported outcome surveys and three clinician-based assessments were included in the Delphi survey. No consensus was generated regarding the best overall CIPN assessment, although good (≥70%) consensus was achieved regarding the best assessment within each criterion. The Participant Neurotoxicity Questionnaire (PNQ) was rated the highest overall and patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment, while the Total Neuropathy Score clinical version (TNSc) was the highest rated clinician-based assessment. CONCLUSIONS: A diverse range of CIPN assessments currently exists. While several assessments assess CIPN symptoms with adequate comprehensiveness, depth, language, and feasibility, the consensus 'gold standard' clinical assessment remains to be established.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a prominent side effect of the treatment of cancer. Despite this frequent complication, there has been no comprehensive review and quality appraisal of CIPN assessments. The purpose of this study is to provide a definitive quality appraisal of CIPN assessment strategies for clinical use. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified through database searches of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane. CIPN assessment strategies from included articles were extracted and initially rated by an oncologist and neurophysiologist according to criteria related to assessment depth, comprehensiveness, appropriateness, and reliability. The six highest scoring assessment strategies were the focus of a two-round Delphi survey of a working party of 32 physicians, nurses, and consumers to achieve consensus on the highest rated assessments for each criterion. RESULTS: The database search yielded 117 distinct CIPN assessments that were extracted from 2373 articles. Three patient-reported outcome surveys and three clinician-based assessments were included in the Delphi survey. No consensus was generated regarding the best overall CIPN assessment, although good (≥70%) consensus was achieved regarding the best assessment within each criterion. The ParticipantNeurotoxicity Questionnaire (PNQ) was rated the highest overall and patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment, while the Total Neuropathy Score clinical version (TNSc) was the highest rated clinician-based assessment. CONCLUSIONS: A diverse range of CIPN assessments currently exists. While several assessments assess CIPN symptoms with adequate comprehensiveness, depth, language, and feasibility, the consensus 'gold standard' clinical assessment remains to be established.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chemotherapy; Neuropathy; Peripheral nervous system diseases; Symptom assessment
Authors: G Lauria; S T Hsieh; O Johansson; W R Kennedy; J M Leger; S I Mellgren; M Nolano; I S J Merkies; M Polydefkis; A G Smith; C Sommer; J Valls-Solé Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: J D England; G S Gronseth; G Franklin; R G Miller; A K Asbury; G T Carter; J A Cohen; M A Fisher; J F Howard; L J Kinsella; N Latov; R A Lewis; P A Low; A J Sumner Journal: Neurology Date: 2005-01-25 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Dawn L Hershman; Louis H Weimer; Antai Wang; Grace Kranwinkel; Lois Brafman; Deborah Fuentes; Danielle Awad; Katherine D Crew Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Kathleen A Griffith; Ingemar S J Merkies; Elizabeth E Hill; David R Cornblath Journal: J Peripher Nerv Syst Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Jennifer S Gewandter; Laurie Burke; Guido Cavaletti; Robert H Dworkin; Christopher Gibbons; Tony D Gover; David N Herrmann; Justin C Mcarthur; Michael P McDermott; Bob A Rappaport; Bryce B Reeve; James W Russell; A Gordon Smith; Shannon M Smith; Dennis C Turk; Aaron I Vinik; Roy Freeman Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2016-12-23 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Paul Lennart Vollmers; Christoph Mundhenke; Nicolai Maass; Dirk Bauerschlag; Stefan Kratzenstein; Christoph Röcken; Thorsten Schmidt Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Hannah C Timmins; Tiffany Li; Terry Trinh; Matthew C Kiernan; Michelle Harrison; Frances Boyle; Michael Friedlander; David Goldstein; Susanna B Park Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-02-10
Authors: Weidong Lu; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Rachel A Freedman; Im Hee Shin; Nancy U Lin; Ann H Partridge; David S Rosenthal; Jennifer A Ligibel Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-10-14
Authors: Christine Miaskowski; Steven M Paul; Judy Mastick; Gary Abrams; Kimberly Topp; Betty Smoot; Kord M Kober; Margaret Chesney; Melissa Mazor; Grace Mausisa; Mark Schumacher; Yvette P Conley; Jennifer Henderson Sabes; Steven Cheung; Margaret Wallhagen; Jon D Levine Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Alice Yu; Deborah Street; Rosalie Viney; Stephen Goodall; Alison Pearce; Philip Haywood; Marion Haas; Eva Battaglini; David Goldstein; Hannah Timmins; Susanna B Park Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Weidong Lu; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Rachel A Freedman; Im Hee Shin; Nancy U Lin; Ann H Partridge; David S Rosenthal; Jennifer A Ligibel Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-10-14
Authors: Ian R Kleckner; Charles Kamen; Jennifer S Gewandter; Nimish A Mohile; Charles E Heckler; Eva Culakova; Chunkit Fung; Michelle C Janelsins; Matthew Asare; Po-Ju Lin; Pavan S Reddy; Jeffrey Giguere; Jeffrey Berenberg; Shelli R Kesler; Karen M Mustian Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Fiona Yeo; Chiu Chin Ng; Kiley W J Loh; Alex Molassiotis; Hui Lin Cheng; Joseph S K Au; Kwun To Leung; Yu Chung Li; Kam-Hung Wong; Lorna Suen; Choi Wan Chan; Janelle Yorke; Carole Farrell; Aishwarya Bandla; Emily Ang; Violeta Lopez; Raghav Sundar; Alexandre Chan Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-04-10 Impact factor: 3.603