Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology Advance Access originally published online on October 8, 2008
Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 2008 38(11):748-754; doi:10.1093/jjco/hyn100
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The Author (2008). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved
A Questionnaire Survey of Physicians’ Perspectives Regarding the Assessment of Chemotherapy-induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Patients with Breast Cancer
1 Department of Surgery, Division of Clinical Trials and Research, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Disease Center Komagome Hospital, Tokyo
2 Department of Biomedical Sciences, Laboratory of Health Services Research, College of Life Sciences, Ritsumeikan University, Shiga
3 Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Tokyo, Tokyo
4 Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Yokohama City University Medical Center, Minami-ku, Yokohama
5 Department of Breast Oncology, National Hosp Organization Shikoku Cancer Center, Ehime
6 Hamamatsu Oncology Center, Shizuoka, Japan
7 BioNumrik Pharmaceuticals Inc, San Antonio, TX, USA
For reprints and all correspondence: Katsumasa Kuroi, Division of Clinical Trials and Research, Department of Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Disease Center Komagome Hospital, 3-18-22 Honkomagome, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8677, Japan. E mail: kurochan{at}dd.iij4u.or.jp
Received June 20, 2008; accepted August 30, 2008
Objective: Since there is now growing interest in the incorporation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer clinical trials, a patient-based questionnaire, the Patient Neurotoxicity Questionnaire (PNQ) was developed to quantify the symptoms and severity of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). The aim of this study was to evaluate the physicians’ perspectives regarding the utility and diagnostic value of PNQ.
Methods: A questionnaire was sent to 61 physicians who participated in a Phase III randomized trial of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer (AC followed by taxane versus taxane alone) that used the PNQ to assess CIPN.
Results: Forty-seven out of 61 physicians (77%) responded. The majority considered neurosensory symptoms the diagnostic hallmark for CIPN and most regarded interference with activities of daily living (ADLs) as definite justification for treatment modifications. For neurosensory disturbance, the majority of physicians indicated that Grade D severity (moderate to severe symptoms interfering with ADLs) should result in treatment postponement and Grade E severity (severe symptoms preventing most ADLs) should result in treatment discontinuation. Similarly, for neuromotor disturbance, over half of the physicians replied that Grade C (moderate symptoms not interfering with ADLs), D and E severity should result in dose reduction, treatment postponement and treatment discontinuation, respectively. Eighty-four percentage of the physicians reported that the use of the PNQ was helpful in the diagnosis and assessment of patients at risk of CIPN.
Conclusions: The PNQ appears to be a useful instrument for the diagnosis and grading of CIPN, as well as for clinical decision-making regarding treatment modifications secondary to CIPN.
Key Words: neuropathy • chemotherapy • patient-reported outcome • questionnaire • breast cancer