Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster display session: Breast cancer - early stage, locally advanced & metastatic, CNS tumours, Developmental therapeutics, Genitourinary tumours - prostate & non-prostate, Palliative care, Psycho-oncology, Public health policy, Sarcoma, Supportive care

3271 - Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neurotoxicity (CIPN): what are patients telling us?

Date

22 Oct 2018

Session

Poster display session: Breast cancer - early stage, locally advanced & metastatic, CNS tumours, Developmental therapeutics, Genitourinary tumours - prostate & non-prostate, Palliative care, Psycho-oncology, Public health policy, Sarcoma, Supportive care

Presenters

Guido Cavaletti

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2018) 29 (suppl_8): viii603-viii640. 10.1093/annonc/mdy300

Authors

G. Cavaletti

Author affiliations

  • School Of Medicine And Surgery, Università degli Studi di Milano Bicocca, 20900 - Monza/IT
More

Resources

Abstract 3271

Background

This is a secondary analysis of the original CI-PeriNomS study dataset to formally test in CIPN patients: a) which is the correlation between patients’ perception of activity limitation and actual neurological impairment, and b) how the responses to simple questions regarding daily activities potentially related to sensory and/or motor impairment are interpreted by the treating oncologist.

Methods

For the purposes of the current study we have analyzed data on the presence (frequency) of CIPN-associated peripheral nerve damage, without taking into account its severity. Comparison was performed between the oncologists’ responses and the scores obtained in strength and vibration detection threshold using the Total Neuropathy Score (clinical, TNSc) criteria compared to patients answers to 8 tasks scored as “impossible” to be performed by at least 5% of the patients.

Results

The distribution of the scores attributed by oncologists to each daily life maximum limitation (“impossible”) allowed categorizing the responses into 3 groups: Group 1 included the limitations that the oncologists attributed mainly to motor impairment (item median motor score = 7, item median sensory score 2-3), Group 2 consisted of limitations mainly attributed to sensory impairment (item median sensory score = 8, item median motor score = 1-2) and Group 3 included limitations with uncertain motor and sensory impairment (item median sensory score = 4-6, item median motor score = 5). We demonstrate that the interpretation of patients’ report provided by the panel of oncologist is poorly consistent with the actual neurological impairment, and that activity limitations capture more than simple impairments and reflect a broader impact than impairment measures.

Conclusions

These observations form a critical basis for further research on the core set of outcome measures needed for future trials in CIPN and at the same time suggest a careful use of available PROs alone as main endpoints in CIPN trials. Presented on behalf of the CI-PeriNoms study group.

Clinical trial identification

Legal entity responsible for the study

CI-PeriNoms study group.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Editorial Acknowledgement

Disclosure

The author has declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.