Comparison of Clinical Symptoms and Neurophysiological Findings in Patients With Chemotherapy Induced Peripheral Neuropathy

Kye Hee Cho; Eun Young Han; Ji Cheol Shin; Min Cheol Ha; Kwang Ho Ahn; Su Hyun Cho; Sang Hee Im

doi:10.3389/fneur.2022.838302

Comparison of Clinical Symptoms and Neurophysiological Findings in Patients With Chemotherapy Induced Peripheral Neuropathy

Front Neurol. 2022 Jun 1:13:838302. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.838302. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Kye Hee Cho¹, Eun Young Han², Ji Cheol Shin³, Min Cheol Ha³, Kwang Ho Ahn³, Su Hyun Cho³, Sang Hee Im³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, CHA Ilsan Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Goyang, South Korea.
² Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Jeju National University School of Medicine, Jeju, South Korea.
³ Department and Research Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.

Abstract

Introduction: Taxanes are associated with a distal sensory neuropathy, significantly affecting cancer survivor quality of life. However, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) assessments are primarily based on clinical symptoms rather than objective neurophysiologic findings. Therefore, we investigated neurophysiologic changes in symptomatic subjects, comparing them with symptom severity.

Materials and methods: Medical charts of 111 subjects who were referred for CIPN diagnosis after chemotherapy for breast or ovarian cancer between May 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, anthropometric parameters, and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) pain scale data were collected. The nerve conduction study (NCS) results, including sensory nerve action potentials recorded from sural nerves, were analyzed relative to clinical symptoms. To optimize follow-up (FU) NCS diagnostic sensitivity, relative references of FU sural amplitude reductions to >30% and an absolute reference <10 μV were used.

Results: Eighty-eight female patients met the criteria, and 20 underwent FU NCS. Baseline and FU sural amplitudes showed significant positive correlation with respective LANSS scores (p < 0.01). FU sural amplitude was significantly lower than the initial result (p < 0.05). The FU LANSS score was not different from the initial score. Initial NCS sensitivity and specificity for clinically suspected CIPN diagnoses with LANSS were 69.7 and 47.3%, respectively. All 20 subjects with FU evaluation were clinically compatible with CIPN (LANSS >12) at initial and FU assessments. Among them, only six (30.0%) had abnormal sural amplitudes (<10μV for ≤50 s, <3 μV for 60 s, <1 μV for 70 s) in the initial NCS. In the FU NCS, sural amplitude became abnormal in five additional subjects. Between the initial and FU NCS, sural amplitude was reduced by > 30% in eight subjects (40.0%). NCS sensitivity increased to 65.0% when including either abnormal sural amplitudes or a > 30% reduction in sural amplitude in FU studies.

Conclusions: Although clinical symptoms and NCS results were positively correlated, a single NCS point had limited value for suspected CIPN electrophysiological diagnoses. Serial NCS during chemotherapy might help assess the degree of chemotherapy-induced nerve damage, attain evidence of CIPN prior to symptom aggravation, and monitor the progression of CIPN. Further study is needed to find specific relative references for variable patient factors to increase the sensitivity of electrophysiological studies of clinically suspected CIPN.

Keywords: cancer; chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy; nerve conduction study; sensitivity; taxane.