Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 20, Issue 10, pp 2433–2439 | Cite as

Scope of symptoms and self-management strategies for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in breast cancer patients

  • Rebecca M. SpeckEmail author
  • Angela DeMichele
  • John T. Farrar
  • Sean Hennessy
  • Jun J. Mao
  • Margaret G. Stineman
  • Frances K. Barg
Original Article



This study explored the self-management strategies utilized by female breast cancer patients to cope with the impact of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) symptoms. We also examined the variety of taxane-related side effects in women with and without CIPN in order to discriminate the CIPN symptom experience.


A purposive sample of 25 patients treated with docetaxel or paclitaxel were recruited, half with and half without CIPN. Semistructured interviews and patient level data were utilized for this exploratory, descriptive study. Interview data were analyzed with the constant comparative method; patient level data were abstracted from the electronic medical record.


Participants were aged 24–60 years, were currently receiving chemotherapy or within 6 months of having completed treatment, and 14 had CIPN. CIPN impacted routine activities, functions, and behaviors in the areas of domestic, work, and social/leisure life. Multiple self-management and coping strategies to minimize the impact of CIPN symptoms were reported; the focus was on movement to reduce symptoms, attitude awareness, logistics to simplify demands, and environmental change. Women with and without CIPN were similar in the quantity and type of other reported side effects.


CIPN affects breast cancer patients’ routine activities, functions, and behaviors, but they develop management strategies to reduce the impact. The management strategies reported in this study suggest breast cancer patients may adopt interventions that focus on exercise, mindfulness, occupational therapy, and environmental planning toward the goal of reducing the impact of CIPN symptoms on their lives.


Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy Symptom management Coping strategies 


Conflicts of Interest



  1. 1.
    Cancer trends progress report—2009/2010 update (2010). National Cancer Institute, NIH, DHHS, Bethesda, MD. Accessed 3 June 2011
  2. 2.
    Budman DR, Berry DA, Cirrincione CT, Henderson IC, Wood WC, Weiss RB et al (1998) Dose and dose intensity as determinants of outcome in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:1205–1211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (1998) Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 352:930–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chirivella I, Bermejo B, Insa A, Perez-Fidalgo A, Magro A, Rosello S et al (2009) Optimal delivery of anthracycline-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting improves outcome of breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Trial 114:479–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang J (2000) Chemotherapy dose reduction and delay in clinical practice. evaluating the risk to patient outcome in adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 36(Suppl 1):S11–S14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Basch E (2010) The missing voice of patients in drug-safety reporting. N Engl J Med 362:865–869PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang J, Huang Y (2007) Pharmacogenomics of sex difference in chemotherapeutic toxicity. Curr Drug Discov Technol 4:59–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Erban JK, Lau J (2006) On the toxicity of chemotherapy for breast cancer—the need for vigilance. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:1096–1097PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hassett MJ, O’Malley AJ, Pakes JR, Newhouse JP, Earle CC (2006) Frequency and cost of chemotherapy-related serious adverse effects in a population sample of women with breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:1108–1117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Hudis C, Winer EP, Gradishar WJ (2003) Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of Intergroup Trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. J Clin Oncol 21:1431–1439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moore S (2007) Managing treatment side effects in advanced breast cancer. Semin Oncol Nurs 23:S23–S30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nahleh Z, Tabbara IA (2003) Complementary and alternative medicine in breast cancer patients. Palliat Support Care 1:267–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Speck RM, Courneya KS, Masse LC, Duval S, Schmitz KH (2010) An update of controlled physical activity trials in cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Surviv 4:87–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cavaletti G, Marmiroli P (2010) Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity. Nat Rev Neurol 6:657–666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wolf S, Barton D, Kottschade L, Grothey A, Loprinzi C (2008) Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: prevention and treatment strategies. Eur J Cancer 44:1507–1515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Visovsky C, Collins M, Abbott L, Aschenbrenner J, Hart C (2007) Putting evidence into practice: evidence-based interventions for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Clin J Oncol Nurs 11:901–913PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bakitas MA (2007) Background noise: the experience of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Nurs Res 56:323–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boehmke MM, Dickerson SS (2005) Symptom, symptom experiences, and symptom distress encountered by women with breast cancer undergoing current treatment modalities. Cancer Nurs 28:382–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tofthagen C (2010) Patient perceptions associated with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Clin J Oncol Nurs 14:E22–E28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    In: Bickman L, Rog DJ (eds) Handbook of applied social research methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 69–100Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Patton M (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kemper EA, Stringfield S, Teddlie C (2003) Mixed methods sampling strategies in social science research. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (eds) Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 273–296Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Paice JA (2009) Clinical challenges: chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Semin Oncol Nurs 25:S8–S19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dunlap B, Paice JA (2006) Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a need for standardization in measurement. J Support Oncol 4:398–399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kuroi K, Shimozuma K, Ohashi Y, Takeuchi A, Aranishi T, Morita S et al (2008) A questionnaire survey of physicians’ perspectives regarding the assessment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in patients with breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 38:748–754PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    National Cancer Institute (2009) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0. NCI, NIH, DHHS. Accessed 10 August 2011
  27. 27.
    QSR International (2008) Nvivo qualitative data analysis software version 8 edn. QSR InternationalGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Boeije H (2002) A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Qual Quant 36:391–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Velos I (2011) Velos eResearch. Velos, Fremont, CAGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sasane M, Tencer T, French A, Maro T, Beusterien KM (2010) Patient-reported outcomes in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a review. J Support Oncol 8:E15–E21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    National Cancer Institute Symptom Management and Quality of Life Steering Committee: chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (2009) National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD. Accessed 3 June 2011
  32. 32.
    Rothman M, Burke L, Erickson P, Leidy NK, Patrick DL, Petrie CD (2009) Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: the ISPOR good research practices for evaluating and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their Modification PRO task force report. Value Health 12:1075–1083PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Webb TL, Sheeran P (2006) Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol Bull 132:249–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Klesges LM, Estabrooks PA, Dzewaltowski DA, Bull SS, Glasgow RE (2005) Beginning with the application in mind: designing and planning health behavior change interventions to enhance dissemination. Ann Behav Med 29(Suppl):66–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca M. Speck
    • 1
    • 2
    • 6
    Email author
  • Angela DeMichele
    • 1
    • 3
  • John T. Farrar
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sean Hennessy
    • 1
  • Jun J. Mao
    • 4
  • Margaret G. Stineman
    • 1
    • 5
  • Frances K. Barg
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Biostatistics and EpidemiologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Anesthesiology and Critical CareUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Division of Hematology and OncologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Department of Family Medicine and Community HealthUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  5. 5.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  6. 6.PhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations