4.7 Article

Neurofilament light as a predictive biomarker of unresolved chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in subjects receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-18716-5

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a significant challenge in cancer treatment. In this study, changes in serum levels of neurodegeneration markers NfL and GFAP were found to be associated with chemotherapy. Furthermore, changes in NfL levels predicted the onset and severity of CIPN, suggesting its potential as a predictive biomarker for dose-limiting CIPN.
Management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) remains a significant challenge in the treatment of cancer. Risk mitigation for CIPN involves preemptive reduction of cumulative dose or reduction of dose intensity upon emergence of symptoms, despite the risk of reduced tumor efficacy. A predictive biomarker for dose-limiting CIPN could improve treatment outcomes by allowing providers to make informed decisions that balance both safety and efficacy. To identify a predictive biomarker of CIPN, markers of neurodegeneration neurofilament-light (NfL), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), tau and ubiquitin c-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCHL1) were assessed in serum of up to 88 subjects drawn 21 days following the first of 6 treatments with chemotherapeutics paclitaxel and carboplatin. Serum NfL and GFAP were increased with chemotherapy. Further, NfL change predicted subsequent onset of grade 2-3 CIPN during the remainder of the trial (mean treatment duration = 200 days) and trended toward stronger prediction of CIPN that remained unresolved at the end of the study. These results confirm previous reports that serum NfL is increased in CIPN and provide the first evidence that NfL can be used to identify subjects susceptible to dose-limiting paclitaxel and carboplatin induced CIPN prior to onset of symptoms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据