4.4 Article

Persistent chemoneuropathy in patients receiving the plant alkaloids paclitaxel and vincristine

期刊

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 71, 期 3, 页码 619-626

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00280-012-2047-z

关键词

Chemoneuropathy; Paclitaxel; Vincristine; Epidermal nerve fiber; Meissner's corpuscles

资金

  1. [NS046606]
  2. [CA124787]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chemoneuropathy remains a painful, burdensome complication of cancer treatment for patients receiving a range of chemotherapeutics, yet the cause and persistence of this condition are not fully documented. This study was designed to quantify the longevity of and contributions to neuropathy following treatment with the plant alkaloids paclitaxel and vincristine. Quantitative sensory testing was conducted approximately 18 months apart on 14 patients, seven of which had been treated with paclitaxel and seven with vincristine and compared to data from 18 healthy control subjects. In addition, skin biopsies were obtained to investigate changes in the density of Meissner's corpuscles and epidermal nerve fibers (ENFs), the loss of which is thought to contribute to multiple forms of neuropathy. Impairments in motor skills, as measured by a grooved peg-board, were found. Deficits in touch detection were observed using von Frey monofilaments, as were changes in sharpness detection using a weighted needle device. Using a Peltier device, warmth and heat detection were impaired. These deficits were consistent across time. Remarkably, the average length of time patients reported painful neuropathy was over four and a half years. Skin biopsies were found to be deficient in Meissner's corpuscles and ENFs. The combination of widespread deficits in sensory testing and decreases in skin innervation for cancer patients receiving paclitaxel or vincristine document a persistent polyneuropathy which severely impacts these patients. Decreases in Meissner's corpuscles and ENFs indicate a possible mechanism for the neuropathy.

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

4.4
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