Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy is a complex side effect with few available treatment options. The aim of the study was to test the effectiveness of an 8-week course of acupuncture in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in cancer patients who were receiving or had received neurotoxic chemotherapy. Methods: Randomized assessor-blinded controlled trial with 2 arms; one arm received acupuncture twice weekly for 8 weeks, while the other arm was a wait-list control group receiving only standard care. Primary outcome was pain intensity and interference over the past week using the Brief Pain Inventory at the end of the intervention. Secondary outcomes included clinical assessment (CTCAE [Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events] grading and Total Neuropathy Score–Clinical Version) and nerve conduction studies; and patient-reported outcome measures (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Gynecologic Oncology Group–Neurotoxicity Quality of Life scale and Symptom Distress Scale) assessed at baseline, end of treatment (8 weeks), week 14, and week 20 from the beginning of treatment. Results: Eighty-seven patients were randomized to the experimental arm (n = 44) and to the standard care wait-list control arm (n = 43). Significant changes at 8 weeks were detected in relation to primary outcome (pain), the clinical neurological assessment, quality of life domains, and symptom distress (all P < .05). Improvements in pain interference, neurotoxicity-related symptoms, and functional aspects of quality of life were sustained in the 14-week assessment (P < .05), as were physical and functional well-being at the 20-week assessment (P < .05). Conclusions: Acupuncture is an effective intervention for treating chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and improving patients’ quality of life and experience with neurotoxicity-related symptoms with longer term effects evident.

BackgroundThere are inconsistencies in the literature regarding the prevalence and assessment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). This study explored CIPN natural history and its characteristics in patients receiving taxane- and platinum-based chemotherapy.Patients and methodsMulti-country multisite prospective longitudinal observational study. Patients were assessed before commencing and three weekly during chemotherapy for up to six cycles, and at 6,9, and 12 months using clinician-based scales (NCI-CTCAE; WHO-CIPN criterion), objective assessments (cotton wool test;10 g monofilament); patient-reported outcome measures (FACT/GOG-Ntx; EORTC-CIPN20), and Nerve Conduction Studies.ResultsIn total, 343 patients were recruited in the cohort, providing 2399 observations. There was wide variation in CIPN prevalence rates using different assessments (14.2–53.4%). Prevalence of sensory neuropathy (and associated symptom profile) was also different in each type of chemotherapy, with paclitaxel (up to 63%) and oxaliplatin (up to 71.4%) showing the highest CIPN rates in most assessments and a more complex symptom profile. Peak prevalence was around the 6-month assessment (up to 71.4%). Motor neurotoxicity was common, particularly in the docetaxel subgroup (up to 22.1%; detected by NCI-CTCAE). There were relatively moderately-to-low correlations between scales (rs = 0.15,p < 0.05-rs = 0.48 p < 0.001), suggesting that they measure different neurotoxicity aspects from each other. Cumulative chemotherapy dose was not associated with onset and course of CIPN.ConclusionThe historical variation reported in CIPN incidence and prevalence is possibly confounded by disagreement between assessment modalities. Clinical practice should consider assessment of motor neuropathy for neurotoxic chemotherapy. Current scales may not be all appropriate to measure CIPN in a valid way, and a combination of scales are needed.

The aim of this study was to summarize the existing qualitative literature in order to develop the evidence base for understanding and managing weight loss and anorexia, in order to make recommendations for clinical practice. A systematic search was performed to retrieve English language studies using electronic search and manual checks of selected reference lists. Keywords included qualitative, cancer cachexia, weight loss, anorexia, appetite, malnutrition, food, eating, and drinking. The selection and appraisal of papers were undertaken by two reviewers. Twenty-one qualitative articles were included in the review. There were three major findings emerging from the previous qualitative studies including ‘the multidimensionality of weight loss and anorexia experience’, ‘patients and caregivers' responses to coping with weight loss and anorexia’, and ‘clinical assessment and management of weight loss and anorexia’. The literature review revealed the multidimensional nature of cachexia and weight loss experience by patients and caregivers, which was not recognized and adequately managed by healthcare professionals. Future research in this area would be helpful in enabling a deeper understanding of the complexity of cachexia and weight loss experience in order to move forward to develop an optimal model of supportive care for patients and caregivers.

Background Chemotherapy‐induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a significant and difficult to manage side effect of neurotoxic chemotherapies. Several risk factors for CIPN have been identified to date, but inconsistencies and methodological limitations exist in past research. Also, a limited number of potential risk factors has been investigated in the past. Aim The objective of this study was to assess the relative contribution of a wider range of risk factors in the development of CIPN. Methods This analysis used the 6‐month data after starting chemotherapy from a larger prospective observational study on CIPN risk, prevalence, and quality of life. Patients were assessed at recruitment for possible CIPN risk factors, including prior history of neuropathies, current/past infectious diseases; neurotoxic medication history; personal and treatment characteristics; smoking history, alcohol use, and vegetable/fruit intake. Neuropathy was assessed at 6‐months after starting chemotherapy with the neuropathy (motor/sensory) items of the NCI‐CTCAE scale and the WHO criterion for neuropathy. Data on symptom burden were also collected. Results Data were available from 255 patients from three cancer centers in Hong Kong, Singapore, and UK. The use of different scales did not always identify the same predictor variables. Key risk factors in multivariate regression models included older age (highest OR = 1.08, p < 0.01 with the WHO scale), chemotherapy (platinum‐based chemotherapy had OR = 0.20–0.27 in developing CIPN compared to taxane‐based chemotherapy), history of neuropathy (for motor CIPN only, OR = 8.36, p < 0.01), symptom burden (OR = 1.06, p < 0.05), number of chemotherapy cycles received (OR = 1.19–1.24, p < 0.01), and alcohol intake (OR = 0.32, p < 0.05). In univariate analysis, the use of statins was implicated with CIPN ( p = 0.03–0.04 with different assessments) and diabetes showed a trend ( p = 0.09) in the development of CIPN. Conclusion This study confirmed the CIPN risk related to certain variables and identified new ones. This knowledge can assist with treatment decisions and patient education.

Background Malnutrition in advanced cancer patients is common but limited and inconclusive data exists on the effectiveness of nutrition interventions. Feasibility and acceptability of a novel family-based nutritional psychosocial intervention were established recently. The aims of this present study were to assess the feasibility of undertaking a randomised controlled trial of the latter intervention, to pilot test outcome measures and to explore preliminary outcomes. Methods Pilot randomised controlled trial recruiting advanced cancer patients and family caregivers in Australia and Hong Kong. Participants were randomised and assigned to one of two groups, either a family-centered nutritional intervention or the control group receiving usual care only. The intervention provided 2–3 h of direct dietitian contact time with patients and family members over a 4–6-week period. During the intervention, issues with nutrition impact symptoms and food or eating-related psychosocial concerns were addressed through nutrition counselling, with a focus on improving nutrition-related communication between the dyads and setting nutritional goals. Feasibility assessment included recruitment, consent rate, retention rate, and acceptability of assessment tools. Validated nutritional and quality of life self-reported measures were used to collect patient and caregiver outcome data, including the 3-day food diary, the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment Short Form, the Functional Assessment Anorexia/Cachexia scale, Eating-related Distress or Enjoyment, and measures of self-efficacy, carers’ distress, anxiety and depression. Results Seventy-four patients and 54 family caregivers participated in the study. Recruitment was challenging, and for every patient agreeing to participate, 14–31 patients had to be screened. The consent rate was 44% in patients and 55% in caregivers. Only half the participants completed the trial’s final assessment. The data showed promise for some patient outcomes in the intervention group, particularly with improvements in eating-related distress (p = 0.046 in the Australian data; p = 0.07 in the Hong Kong data), eating-related enjoyment (p = 0.024, Hong Kong data) and quality of life (p = 0.045, Australian data). Energy and protein intake also increased in a clinically meaningful way. Caregiver data on eating-related distress, anxiety, depression and caregiving burden, however, showed little or no change. Conclusions Despite challenges with participant recruitment, the intervention demonstrates good potential to have positive effects on patients’ nutritional status and eating-related distress. The results of this trial warrant a larger and fully-powered trial to ascertain the effectiveness of this intervention. Trial registration The trial was registered with the Australian & New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, registration number ACTRN12618001352291.