Chronic chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and pain following paclitaxel versus docetaxel in breast cancer survivors: A cross-sectional study

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Breast Pub Date : 2025-02-16 DOI:10.1016/j.breast.2025.104424
Nina Lykkegaard Gehr , Signe Timm , Kristine Bennedsgaard , Kasper Grosen , Erik Jakobsen , Anders Bonde Jensen , Jeanette Dupont Rønlev , Ann Søegaard Knoop , Nanna B. Finnerup , Lise Ventzel
{"title":"Chronic chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and pain following paclitaxel versus docetaxel in breast cancer survivors: A cross-sectional study","authors":"Nina Lykkegaard Gehr ,&nbsp;Signe Timm ,&nbsp;Kristine Bennedsgaard ,&nbsp;Kasper Grosen ,&nbsp;Erik Jakobsen ,&nbsp;Anders Bonde Jensen ,&nbsp;Jeanette Dupont Rønlev ,&nbsp;Ann Søegaard Knoop ,&nbsp;Nanna B. Finnerup ,&nbsp;Lise Ventzel","doi":"10.1016/j.breast.2025.104424","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a concerning late effect of taxane treatment. This study aimed to explore and compare long-term symptoms and consequences of CIPN after docetaxel and paclitaxel treatment.</div><div>Patients with breast cancer who had followed Danish recommended adjuvant docetaxel or paclitaxel treatment regimens completed an online questionnaire 2–3 years after treatment. The questionnaire comprised the Michigan Neuropathy Screen Instrument, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-CIPN20, EORTC QLQ C30, and CIPN-specific symptoms. Painful CIPN was assessed using the Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions.</div><div>Questionnaires from 411 patients (docetaxel: 192, paclitaxel: 219) were analyzed. No significant difference in the prevalence of possible CIPN between the two groups was observed (docetaxel: 48.4 % [93/192] vs. paclitaxel: 45.2 % [99/219]; 95 % CI: 6.4 - 12.9, p = 0.51). However, the EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20 sum score was higher in the docetaxel group (difference: 3.0; 95 % CI: 0.0–6.1, p = 0.05).</div><div>Among patients with reported CIPN symptoms, significantly more in the docetaxel group reported painful CIPN (docetaxel: 53.8 % [50/93] than in the paclitaxel group: 34.3 % [34/99]; p = 0.01). Quality of life scores from the EORCT-QLQ-C30 questionnaire were significantly lower in those with possible CIPN than in those without and lower in patients with painful possible CIPN than in those with painless CIPN.</div><div>Docetaxel caused more severe and painful CIPN symptoms than paclitaxel. These findings are highly relevant, as docetaxel remains a crucial component of cancer treatments.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9093,"journal":{"name":"Breast","volume":"80 ","pages":"Article 104424"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960977625000438","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a concerning late effect of taxane treatment. This study aimed to explore and compare long-term symptoms and consequences of CIPN after docetaxel and paclitaxel treatment.
Patients with breast cancer who had followed Danish recommended adjuvant docetaxel or paclitaxel treatment regimens completed an online questionnaire 2–3 years after treatment. The questionnaire comprised the Michigan Neuropathy Screen Instrument, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-CIPN20, EORTC QLQ C30, and CIPN-specific symptoms. Painful CIPN was assessed using the Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions.
Questionnaires from 411 patients (docetaxel: 192, paclitaxel: 219) were analyzed. No significant difference in the prevalence of possible CIPN between the two groups was observed (docetaxel: 48.4 % [93/192] vs. paclitaxel: 45.2 % [99/219]; 95 % CI: 6.4 - 12.9, p = 0.51). However, the EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20 sum score was higher in the docetaxel group (difference: 3.0; 95 % CI: 0.0–6.1, p = 0.05).
Among patients with reported CIPN symptoms, significantly more in the docetaxel group reported painful CIPN (docetaxel: 53.8 % [50/93] than in the paclitaxel group: 34.3 % [34/99]; p = 0.01). Quality of life scores from the EORCT-QLQ-C30 questionnaire were significantly lower in those with possible CIPN than in those without and lower in patients with painful possible CIPN than in those with painless CIPN.
Docetaxel caused more severe and painful CIPN symptoms than paclitaxel. These findings are highly relevant, as docetaxel remains a crucial component of cancer treatments.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Breast
Breast 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
165
审稿时长
59 days
期刊介绍: The Breast is an international, multidisciplinary journal for researchers and clinicians, which focuses on translational and clinical research for the advancement of breast cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment of all stages.
期刊最新文献
The effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on ductal carcinoma in situ in triple-negative breast cancer patients: A nationwide analysis Chronic chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and pain following paclitaxel versus docetaxel in breast cancer survivors: A cross-sectional study Corrigendum to ‘Impact of adjuvant trastuzumab therapy and its discontinuation on cardiac function and mortality in patients with early-stage breast cancer: An analysis based on the Japanese Receipt Claim Database’ [The Breast 79 (2025) 103871] Side-effects in women treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer Experiences and preferences about information on treatment-related side effects among patients with early breast cancer
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1