Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 20, Issue 12, pp 3355–3364 | Cite as

Taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy and health-related quality of life in postoperative breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy: N-SAS BC 02, a randomized clinical trial

  • Kojiro ShimozumaEmail author
  • Yasuo Ohashi
  • Ayano Takeuchi
  • Toshihiko Aranishi
  • Satoshi Morita
  • Katsumasa Kuroi
  • Shozo Ohsumi
  • Haruhiko Makino
  • Noriyuki Katsumata
  • Masaru Kuranami
  • Kimito Suemasu
  • Toru Watanabe
  • Frederick H. Hausheer
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

To elucidate whether adjuvant taxane monotherapy is a feasible and tolerable for postoperative breast cancer patients, we evaluated the severity of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) and the relative tolerability of regimens by health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessment in node-positive breast cancer patients treated with taxane-containing regimens.

Methods

We evaluated CIPN and HRQOL in the first 300 patients enrolled in a larger (1,060 total) multicenter phase III trial randomized to one of four adjuvant regimens: (1) anthracycline–cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel (ACP), (2) AC followed by docetaxel (ACD), (3) paclitaxel alone (PTX), or (4) docetaxel alone (DTX). CIPN was assessed by the Patient Neurotoxicity Questionnaire (PNQ) and the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, and HRQOL by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). CIPN and HRQOL scores were compared between ACP and ACD vs. PTX and DTX, and ACP and PTX vs. ACD and DTX.

Results

PNQ sensory scores were significantly higher in patients treated with taxane monotherapy compared to treatment with AC followed by taxane (P = .003). No significant differences in PNQ sensory scores were observed between the ACP and PTX vs. ACD and DTX regimens (P = .669). Regardless of taxane regimen, PNQ severity scores for CIPN appear to be largely reversible within 1 year of adjuvant treatment. No significant difference in FACT-G scores was observed between any regimens during the study treatments.

Conclusions

Patient-reported CIPN was significantly more severe with single-agent adjuvant taxane compared to AC followed by taxane treatment; however, the HRQOL findings support that single-agent taxane treatment is tolerable.

Keywords

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy Health-related quality of life Adjuvant chemotherapy Patient Neurotoxicity Questionnaire 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank all the patients, investigators, and clinical research specialists who participated in this study. We also thank Ms. Michiko Kato and Ms. Yumiko Nomura for their helpful assistance in creating this study report.

Conflict of interest

This study was funded by the Comprehensive Support Project for Oncology Research (CSPOR) and for Health Outcomes Research (CSP-HOR) of the Public Health Research Foundation (PHRF; Tokyo, Japan). All corporate and personal sources of financial support to PHRF are listed in the CSPOR website (http://www.csp.or.jp/cspor/kyousan.html). The pharmaceutical manufacturers/distributors who had provided financial contribution as a corporate sponsor took no part in this study other than providing information relevant to proper use of the study drugs. All decisions concerning the planning, implementation, and publication of this study were made by the executive committee of this study. I certify that I have no conflict of interest relevant to this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Ferguson T, Wilcken N, Vagg R, Ghersi D, Nowak AK (2007) Taxanes for adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD004421PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S et al (2008) Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 358:1663–1671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shan K, Lincoff AM, Young JB (1996) Anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity. Ann Intern Med 125:47–58PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Winer EP, Berry DA, Woolf S et al (2004) Failure of higher-dose paclitaxel to improve outcome in patients with metastatic breast cancer: cancer and leukemia group B trial 9342. J Clin Oncol 22:2061–2068PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rowinsky EK, Donehower RC (1995) Paclitaxel (taxol). N Engl J Med 332:1004–1014PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hilkens PH, ven den Bent MJ (1997) Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. J Peripher Nerv Syst 2:350–361PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee JJ, Swain SM (2006) Peripheral neuropathy induced by microtubule-stabilizing agents. J Clin Oncol 24:1633–1642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Argyriou AA, Koltzenburg M, Polychronopoulos P, Papapetropoulos S, Kalofonos HP (2008) Peripheral nerve damage associated with administration of taxanes in patients with cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 66:218–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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
  10. 10.
    Harvey V, Mouridsen H, Semiglazov V et al (2006) Phase III trial comparing three doses of docetaxel for second-line treatment of advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:4963–4970PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Litwin MS, Lubeck DP, Henning JM, Carroll PR (1998) Differences in urologist and patient assessments of health related quality of life in men with prostate cancer: results of the CaPSURE database. J Urol 159:1988–1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fromme EK, Eilers KM, Mori M, Hsieh YC, Beer TM (2004) How accurate is clinician reporting of chemotherapy adverse effects? A comparison with patient-reported symptoms from the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire C30. J Clin Oncol 22:3485–3490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Basch E, Iasonos A, McDonough T et al (2006) Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: results of a questionnaire-based study. Lancet Oncol 7:903–909PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petersen MA, Larsen H, Pedersen L, Sonne N, Groenvold M (2006) Assessing health-related quality of life in palliative care: comparing patient and physician assessments. Eur J Cancer 42:1159–1166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Postma TJ, Heimans JJ, Muller MJ, Ossenkoppele GJ, Vermorken JB, Aaronson NK (1998) Pitfalls in grading severity of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Ann Oncol 9:739–744PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Postma TJ, Heimans JJ (2000) Grading of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Ann Oncol 11:509–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hausheer FH, Schilsky RL, Bain S, Berghorn EJ, Lieberman F (2006) Diagnosis, management, and evaluation of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Semin Oncol 33:15–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sloan JA, Berk L, Roscoe J et al (2007) Integrating patient-reported outcomes into cancer symptom management clinical trials supported by the National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trials networks. J Clin Oncol 25:5070–5077PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kuroi K, Shimozuma K, Ohashi Y et al (2009) Prospective assessment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy due to weekly paclitaxel in patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer (CSP-HOR 02 study). Support Care Cancer 17:1071–1080PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuroi K, Shimozuma K, Ohashi Y 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
  21. 21.
    Shimozuma K, Ohashi Y, Takeuchi A et al (2009) Feasibility and validity of the Patient Neurotoxicity Questionnaire during taxane chemotherapy in a phase III randomized trial in patients with breast cancer: N-SAS BC 02. Support Care Cancer 17(12):1483–1491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G et al (1993) The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 11:570–579PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fumimoto H, Kobayashi K, Chang CH et al (2001) Cross-cultural validation of an international questionnaire, the General Measure of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale (FACT-G), for Japanese. Qual Life Res 10:701–709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Calhoun EA, Welshman EE, Chang CH et al (2003) Psychometric evaluation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity (Fact/GOG-Ntx) questionnaire for patients receiving systemic chemotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 13:741–748PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huang HQ, Brady MF, Cella D, Fleming G (2007) Validation and reduction of FACT/GOG-Ntx subscale for platinum/paclitaxel-induced neurologic symptoms: a gynecologic oncology group study. Int J Gynecol Cancer 17:387–393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ohsumi S, Sunada Y (2004) Techniques for the neurological examination of taxane-induced neuropathy. Breast Cancer 11:86–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jones SE, Erban J, Overmoyer B et al (2005) Randomized phase III study of docetaxel compared with paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:5542–5551PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kojiro Shimozuma
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yasuo Ohashi
    • 2
  • Ayano Takeuchi
    • 2
  • Toshihiko Aranishi
    • 2
  • Satoshi Morita
    • 3
  • Katsumasa Kuroi
    • 4
  • Shozo Ohsumi
    • 5
  • Haruhiko Makino
    • 6
  • Noriyuki Katsumata
    • 7
  • Masaru Kuranami
    • 8
  • Kimito Suemasu
    • 9
    • 10
  • Toru Watanabe
    • 11
  • Frederick H. Hausheer
    • 12
  1. 1.Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Life SciencesRitsumeikan UniversityKusatsuJapan
  2. 2.Department of Biostatistics, School of Public HealthThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Biostatistics and EpidemiologyYokohama City University Medical CenterYokohamaJapan
  4. 4.Division of Clinical Trials and Research, Department of SurgeryTokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Diseases Center Komagome HospitalTokyoJapan
  5. 5.Department of Breast OncologyNational Hospital Organization Shikoku Cancer CenterMatsuyamaJapan
  6. 6.Division of Breast OncologyNiigata City General HospitalNiigataJapan
  7. 7.Breast and Medical Oncology DivisionNational Cancer Center HospitalTokyoJapan
  8. 8.Kitasato University HospitalSagamiharaJapan
  9. 9.Saitama Cancer CenterSaitamaJapan
  10. 10.Arche ClinicSaitamaJapan
  11. 11.Hamamatsu Oncology CenterHamamatsuJapan
  12. 12.BioNumerik Pharmaceuticals Inc.San AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations