S-1
Supplement
NCCN Task Force Report: Management of
Neuropathy in Cancer
Michael D. Stubblefield, MD; Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD; Allen W. Burton, MD; Christian M. Custodio, MD; Gary E. Deng, MD, PhD;
Maria Ho, PhD; Larry Junck, MD; G. Stephen Morris, PT, PhD; Judith A. Paice, PhD, RN, FAAN; Sudhakar Tummala, MD;
and Jamie H. Von Roenn, MD
Key Words
NCCN Task Force, neuropathy, cancer treatment
Abstract
Neuropathy is a common, often debilitating complication of cancer
and its treatment. Effective management of this disorder depends
on early diagnosis and an understanding of its underlying causes
in the individual patient. In January 2009, NCCN gathered a mul-
tidisciplinary group to review the literature and discuss interven-
tion strategies currently available to patients as well as areas that
require research efforts. The task force, which comprised experts
in anesthesiology, medical oncology, neurology, neuro-oncology,
neurophysiology, nursing, pain management, and rehabilitation,
was charged with the goal of outlining recommendations for the
possible prevention, diagnosis, and management of neuropathy.
This report documents the proceedings of this meeting with a gen-
eral background on neuropathy and neuropathy in oncology, fol-
lowed by discussions on challenges and research issues, evaluation
criteria, and management of different symptoms associated with
this disorder. (JNCCN 2009;7[Suppl 5]:S1-S26)
Overview
What Is Neuropathy?
Neuropathy, or peripheral neuropathy, is defined as the
condition arising from the damage and dysfunction of the
peripheral nerves—the motor, sensory and autonomic
nerves that connect the brain and spinal cord to the rest of
the body. The major anatomic demarcations of the periph-
eral nervous system include the nerve root, plexus, and
peripheral nerves. Although the terms neuropathy and pe-
ripheral neuropathy generally refer to the part of the nervous
system distal to the plexus, it should be noted that any
or all levels of the peripheral nervous system may be af-
fected depending on the etiology of insult. There are more
than 100 known types of neuropathy, each with its specific
prognosis, set of symptoms, and progressive pattern.
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
Neuropathy is most common in people over age
55, with a prevalence of 3% to 4%. Among the general
population, about a third of cases are caused by diabe-
tes, while another third is termed idiopathic (cause un-
known). Neuropathy can also result from a variety of
factors, including medications (such as chemotherapeu-
tic agents), genetics, autoimmune disorders, infections,
nutritional deficiencies, and metabolic imbalances.
Neuropathy is a common complication of cancer and its
treatment that can lead to serious clinical consequences
for the patient. This report presents the views of the
NCCN Task Force on the assessment and management
of neuropathy in cancer patients as discussed at the
meeting in January 2009.
Signs and Symptoms
The severity of neuropathy ranges from discomfort to
being severely debilitating, and the onset of symptoms
can be sudden or slowly progress over time. Initially, pa-
tients often feel abnormal sensations like tingling, pain,
or numbness. Many complain of difficulty in walking,
dropping things, or feeling like they are wearing gloves
and stockings when they are not. If internal organs are
affected, patients may experience diarrhea or constipa-
tion, low blood pressure, irregular heartbeat, or even
difficulty breathing.
Neuropathy in Cancer
Consequences of neuropathy can be severe for patients
with cancer and may result in reduced quality of life, in-
terference with activities of daily living, disability, and
potentially shorter survival. Neuropathic symptoms re-
sulting from therapeutic interventions such as the che-
motherapy can cause treatment delays, dose reductions,
or even discontinuation of therapy, which can affect
outcomes and compromise survival.
S-2 Supplement
NCCN Task Force Report
Patients with cancer have a heightened risk
of developing neuropathy. Cancer-related causes
include:
• Neurotoxicity of cancer treatment, such as sur-
gery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy (addressed
further in detail)
• Tumor pathology: direct compression or infiltra-
tion of nerves by primary or metastatic lesions
• Nutritional deficiencies
• Metabolic disturbances
• Opportunistic infections
• Paraneoplastic neurologic disorders (PND), or
nervous dysfunction caused by the remote effects
of cancer
Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy
Neuropathy is a major dose-limiting toxicity of many
chemotherapeutic regimens.1 Among the various
types of neuropathies seen in cancer patients, che-
motherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN)
is the most widely reported and has been the focus of
research efforts. For these reasons, much of the panel
discussion and conclusions is focused on CIPN.
CIPN usually manifests as sensory symptoms
such as paresthesia and dysesthesia (numbness, tin-
gling, abnormal touch sensations), or cold sensitiv-
ity. Pain is often reported and may be described as
burning, freezing, lancination, shock-like, or elec-
tric. Normal touch can be perceived as painful (al-
lodynia), with sensations that would normally be
painful experienced as excruciating (hyperpathia).
Motor symptoms are uncommon and usually milder.
These may manifest as mild weakness in the lower
limbs. Reflexes at the ankles may be diminished or
absent. Some patients experience altered proprio-
ception, which can lead to accidents or falls. Auto-
nomic impairment is thought to be rare, although
this has not been systematically studied. Evidence of
this impairment might include constipation after use
of vinca alkaloids,2,3 orthostasis, urinary dysfunction,
and sexual dysfunction.
CIPN has a number of diagnostic features that
can help physicians distinguish it from other neurop-
athies (e.g., PND, carpal tunnel syndrome, diabetic
neuropathy, metabolic neuropathy). These are:
• Symmetrical, distal, length-dependent “glove
and stocking” distribution
• Predominantly sensory symptoms (especially
pain), both in frequency and severity, rather
than motor symptoms
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
• Onset after administration of chemotherapy,
which may be progressive, rapid, or “coasting”
• Dose-dependent
Table 1 is a general but not exhaustive list of
chemotherapeutic drugs and anticancer biologics
frequently reported as associated with symptomatic
neuropathy.1,4 These include platinum-containing
agents, vinca alkaloids, taxanes, bortezomib, thalido-
mide, lenalidomide, and ixabepilone. Many of these
drugs (e.g., paclitaxel and cisplatin) are widely used
in a variety of cancers. The onset dose is an approxi-
mation of the cumulative dose when neuropathy
typically starts to occur. For most regimens, sever-
ity of neuropathy increases with dose and duration
until cessation of treatment. A notable exception is
the platinum agents, for which symptoms may prog-
ress for weeks to months after treatment completion.
This is called the coasting effect.5
Another exception to the typical pattern of CIPN
is oxaliplatin, which is unique in that 2 patterns have
been observed: acute transient (cold-induced) and
cumulative persistent (dose-limiting) neuropathy.6,7
Symptoms of CIPN usually subside with time for
most drugs, although long-term sequelae can occur.
Challenges in Oncology and Research Issues
Despite the high overall reported occurrence across
different cancers, data on neuropathic toxicity ap-
pears scattered and at times confusing, especially for
older drugs such as cisplatin or vincristine. Histori-
cally, CIPN has not been a research focus in che-
motherapeutic medicine. Neurotoxicity is typically
reported as one of many adverse events in clinical tri-
als the goal of which is to test other health outcomes
(e.g., response or survival), and this broadly defined
term renders comparison across studies difficult.
As shown in Table 1, the frequency of docu-
mented neuropathic events ranges widely for many
agents. One main reason is that the severity and
frequency of the adverse effects heavily depends on
the dose, duration, and schedule. This can be illus-
trated using paclitaxel given to breast cancer pa-
tients: a dose of 175 mg/m2 is associated with 2% to
12%25,28,30,31 grade 3 to 4 sensory neuropathy (based
on the National Cancer Institute Common Termi-
nology Criteria for Adverse Events [NCI-CTCAE]),
compared with 22% to 33%29,30 for a dose of 250 mg/
m2 (infusion over 3 hours every 3 weeks for either
dose). Within the same trial, increasing the infusion
period from 3 to 24 hours at the 250 mg/m2 dose re-
 Table 1 Common Antineoplastic Agents Known to Induce Neuropathy
Drug
Platinum compounds
Cisplatin1,8–11
Carboplatin1,9–14
Oxaliplatin (acute)1,15,16
Oxaliplatin (persistent/
chronic)17–20
Vinca alkaloids
Vincristine, vinblastine,
vinorelbine, vindesine21–24
Taxanes
Paclitaxel10–12,25–34
Abraxane (albumin-
bound paclitaxel)31,35
Docetaxel1,25,34,36–38
Others
Bortezomib39–44
Ixabepilone45,46
Thalidomide47–53
Lenalidomide
(thalidomide analog)54,55
* Dose-limiting or grade 3 or 4 neuropathy according to the grading scale used by the study authors.
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
Incidence
28%–100% (overall)
+ paclitaxel: 7%–8%
(severe*)
6%–42% (overall)
+ paclitaxel: 4%–9% (severe)
85%–95% (overall)
FOLFOX: 10%–18% (severe)
30%–47% (overall)
57%–83% (overall),
2%–33% (severe)
+ Cisplatin: 7%–8% (severe)
+ Carboplatin: 4%–16%
(severe)
73% (overall)
10%–15% (severe)
11%–64% (overall)
3%–14% (severe)
31%–55% (overall)
9%–22% (severe)
63% (overall), 14% (severe)
+ capecitabine:
67% (overall), 21% (severe)
25%–83% (overall), 15%–
28% (severe)
10%–23% (overall), 1%–3%
(severe)
Onset Dose Clinical Manifestation Recovery
300 mg/m2 Symmetrical painful paresthesia or Partial, symptoms may
numbness in a stocking-glove distribution, progress for months after
sensory ataxia with gait dysfunction discontinuation
800–1600 mg/m2 Similar to cisplatin but milder Similar to cisplatin
any Cold-induced painful dysesthesia Resolution within a week
2
750–850 mg/m Similar to cisplatin Resolution in 3 months, may
persist long-term
4–10 mg Symmetrical tingling paresthesia, loss Resolution usually within
of ankle stretch reflexes, constipation, 3 months, may persist for
occasionally weakness, and gait dysfunction vincristine
100–300 mg/m2 Symmetrical painful paresthesia or Resolution usually within 3
numbness in stocking-glove distribution, months, may persist
decreased vibration or proprioception,
occasionally weakness, sensory ataxia, and
gait dysfunction
unclear Similar to paclitaxel Resolution usually within 3
weeks
75–100 mg/m2 Similar to paclitaxel Resolution usually within 3
months, may persist
1.3 mg/m2 Painful paresthesia, burning sensation, Resolution usually within 3
Supplement
occasionally weakness, sensory ataxia, months, may persist
Management of Neuropathy in Cancer
and gait dysfunction. Rare autonomic
dysfunction including orthostatic
hypotension
40–120 mg/m2 Painful paresthesia, burning sensation Resolution in 4–6 weeks
20 g Symmetrical tingling or numbness, pain. May persist for over 1 year
Occasionally weakness, sensory ataxia, and
gait dysfunction
unclear Similar to thalidomide Unclear
S-3
S-4 Supplement
NCCN Task Force Report
duced the incidence of severe neuropathy from 22%
to 13%,29 while the increasingly adopted weekly
schedule of 1-hour infusion (80 mg/m2) increased
neuropathic events compared with the conventional
3-hour infusion (175 mg/m2) every 3 weeks (24% vs.
12%).28 Also, chemotherapy regimens often include
more than one potentially neurotoxic drug, and the
potential additive or synergistic effects of different
drug combinations remain largely elusive.
In addition, cancer patients may have pre-
existing peripheral nervous system dysfunction such
as radiculopathy from degenerative disease or neu-
ropathy from diabetes or other causes. This can pre-
dispose them to manifesting earlier and more severe
neuropathic symptoms when challenged with a neu-
rotoxic chemotherapeutic or other cancer-related
insult.56 By the nature of the modern medical system,
most cancer patients enrolling in a clinical trial have
advanced disease and have already been exposed to
a number of chemotherapeutic drugs, many of which
may be neurotoxins. This poses significant difficulty
in properly attributing subsequent neuropathy to
the agent or regimen tested. For example, in a trial
of 113 advanced breast cancer patients who have
been heavily pretreated, mild peripheral neuropathy
(grade 1–2) was already evident in 27% of the wom-
en before administration of the neurotoxic ixabepi-
lone.45 Similarly, Richardson et al.44 documented an
81% and 83% baseline incidence of symptomatic
neuropathy before bortezomib treatment based on
patient questionnaires and neurologist examination
reports, respectively, in a group of 256 patients with
recurrent/relapsed myeloma. In the group, 11% also
had a history of diabetes, which may have contrib-
uted to the development of CIPN.
Unfortunately, these 2 studies are among the few
that include such complete information. The Task
Force panelists expressed concern about the lack of
standardization in quality reporting of CIPN. Across
clinical trials, neuropathic cases have been recorded
in a number of formats: specific symptoms (e.g., pain),
development of functional impairment resulting from
symptoms, neurophysiologic testing, and prevalence
by grade or incidence of only severe cases according
to different scoring systems. Even when the same scale
is used, grading can vary due to differences in training
and experience in patient assessment.
Compounding the problem is the issue of under-
reporting. Most clinical trials rely on patient self-
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
report of symptoms rather than active query by the
evaluator. Such voluntary symptom reporting can be
influenced by patient personality, physician-patient
relationship, and the medical system in which the
study is conducted. The subjective nature of CIPN
symptoms adds to the variability of reported inci-
dence and severity. Underestimation and underre-
porting of CIPN are also suggested by studies that
show that physician evaluation results in lower pain
assessments than invited patient questionnaire.57–59
Admittedly, most existing evaluation tools are de-
signed to measure neuropathy in other settings (e.g.,
diabetes) and have not been validated for CIPN.
More sensitive and comprehensive assessment sys-
tems are needed for the chemotherapy setting.
Terminology clarification is also important for
differential diagnosis. Panelists noted that health
professionals and patients are often confused about
the various medical terms describing pain (pain,
neuropathy, paresthesia, dysesthesia), and with the
different clinical conditions associated with pain. A
patient experiencing paclitaxel-induced arthralgia is
a classic example. Arthralgia is a transient, inflam-
matory joint pain that typically develops 24 to 48
hours after infusion and persisting for 3 to 5 days,
as opposed to the symmetrical glove-stocking distri-
bution of numbness, tingling, or burning related to
CIPN that progresses with accumulating dose. How-
ever, the patient may only complain of a generic
“pain” during a doctor visit. Becoming familiar with
the clinical diagnostic features of CIPN and asking
specific questions will help the evaluator identify the
condition and implement proper intervention, such
as dose reduction.
Quality assessment and reporting leading to ac-
curate diagnosis is a crucial step that must precede
clinical decisions regarding treatment. Unfortunate-
ly, CIPN presents a diagnostic dilemma because, to
date, approved, effective treatment options are lack-
ing. Although many therapeutic agents to treat or
prevent CIPN have been proposed over the years,
few are supported by adequate data. As opposed to
studies investigating drug efficacy, conducting clini-
cal trials to test strategies for lowering toxicity may
be difficult because of financial support, physician
perception, and public concern. Because some treat-
ments for neuropathy are over-the-counter supple-
ments (e.g., glutamine), obtaining financial support
for a large, robust clinical trial may be difficult.

Management of Neuropathy in Cancer
Also, the balance between lowering or prevent-
ing neurologic toxicity and maintaining drug efficacy
may be fine, because the 2 may be closely related.
Randomized studies on preventative agents have
been closed prematurely because of preliminary con-
cerns on their negative impact on the efficacy of che-
motherapy, although retrospective review did not
support these concerns (see Prevention, page S-11).
Other clinical trials are still ongoing, but these
studies will need to show reduced neurotoxicity with-
out compromise of antineoplastic toxicity. This poses
a major challenge, because large patient numbers are
needed to provide sufficient power for proving non-
inferiority. However, the persistent pattern of CIPN
may present the opportunity to use a crossover de-
sign on intervention strategies, in which patients are
randomized to 2 treatment sequences: placebo-agent
or agent-placebo.60 Provided that carry-over effects
are carefully considered, within-patient comparisons
of crossovers can significantly enhance the statisti-
cal power by eliminating between-patient variation.
This study approach has been effectively applied to
polyneuropathic pain management,61 as well as can-
cer supportive care strategies.62–64
Mechanisms of Neuropathy
Neurotoxicity Mechanisms of Chemotherapeutic
and Biologic Agents
Neuropathy arises from damage to the peripheral
nerves. Within the peripheral nervous system, the
motor axons (nerve fibers) are large and myelinated,
and the sensory and autonomic axons are mostly
small and unmyelinated or thinly myelinated. The
type of neuropathic symptom experienced depends
on the type of nerve affected:
• Sensory nerves affect sensation, such as with
painful paresthesia, dysesthesia, cold-sensitivity,
tingling, numbness, alteration in vibration and
proprioception, or a change in reflexes.
• Motor nerves affect muscles and motion, such as
with muscle weakness.
• Autonomic nerves affect internal organs, such
as with orthostatic hypotension, constipation,
urinary retention, irregular heart rate, and
sexual dysfunction.
Most neurotoxic drugs (taxanes and vinca alka-
loids) used in chemotherapy cause axonal damage, a
condition termed axonopathy. Primary nerve toxic-
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
Supplement S-5
ity of the platinum drugs seems to occur at the dor-
sal root ganglion (DRG), resulting in neuronopathy.
Small sensory fibers are affected early and most fre-
quently by chemotherapeutic agents. Because these
nerves have little capacity for regeneration, damage
to them is responsible for the predominance of sen-
sory symptoms found in CIPN. Also, the cell bodies
of the peripheral sensory neurons are located in the
DRG, where they are outside the protective blood-
brain barrier and thus more vulnerable.
The DRG also has a rich supply of capillaries that
are highly permeable to toxic compounds circulating
in the blood. Motor nerves are generally less frequent-
ly or seriously affected by neurotoxic chemotherapy.
Motor nerves that have survived a chemotherapeutic
insult have the capacity for distal sprouting and re-
innervation of muscle fibers that have lost their in-
nervation. Clinically, this capacity for regeneration
results in the recovery of the patient’s strength and
function. Autonomic nerves are also usually less sensi-
tive to the effects of neurotoxic chemotherapy.
The exact mechanism of damage remains to be
fully elucidated for each class of chemotherapy drugs,
but various mechanisms based on in vitro and in
animal models have been proposed. The platinum
compounds have been reported to accumulate in the
DRG and exert direct damage to the DRG neurons,
inducing DNA derangement, morphologic changes,
and subsequent apoptosis.65,66 Cisplatin can also
disrupt axonal microtubule growth that is essential
for axonal transport.67 Studies suggest that the acute
form of oxaliplatin toxicity may be associated with
calcium chelation by oxalate released from the drug,
adversely affecting
������������������������������������������
ion�����������������������������
��������������������������������
channels and synaptic
���������������
trans-
mission. Like cisplatin, taxanes and vinca alkaloids
68,69
have also been found to disrupt axonal transport via
microtubule damage.70–73 Of note, vinca alkaloids
are known to induce severe acute neurotoxicity
in patients with Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, a
hereditary sensorimotor neuropathy.74 �����������
Correspond-
ingly, the genetic mutations involved in this disorder
are also linked to malfunction in microtubules and
axonal transport.75,76
Among newer agents, a role in neuronal
degeneration has been attributed to thalidomide.77
Bortezomib, a novel proteasome inhibitor, may
induce neuronal injury via multiple mechanisms such
as cytoskeletal change, mitochondrial disturbance,
and disruption in tubulin polymerization.78–80
S-6 Supplement
NCCN Task Force Report
The extent of nerve damage affects the distribu-
tion of symptoms. One useful classification of neu-
ropathy is as follows:
• Mononeuropathy: damage to a single peripheral
nerve
• Mononeuropathy multiplex: involvement of sev-
eral isolated nerves
• Polyneuropathy: simultaneous malfunction of
many peripheral nerves
• Autonomic neuropathy: damage to nerves affect-
ing internal organs
CIPN is primarily polyneuropathic, with sym-
metric stocking-glove “dying back” distribution,
with the earliest symptoms developing at the finger
tips and toes���������������������������������������
(Figure 1)����������������������������
. The length-dependent, dis-
tal pattern seems to indicate distal involvement of
the longest peripheral axons, followed by progression
of the symptoms proximally along the limbs as the
neuropathy worsens. One explanation is that these
longest fibers have the greatest surface area exposed
to a CIPN drug and hence are subject to greater
toxicity. Existing mononeuropathy such as median
nerve damage found in carpal tunnel syndrome can
worsen as CIPN polyneuropathy develops.
Neuropathic Mechanisms From Other Conditions
As previously discussed, PND is a rare condition
that typically precedes tumor diagnosis and can
lead to neuropathic symptoms in cancer patients.
PND is thought to arise from autoimmune response
directed against tumor antigens, which also cross-
react with proteins normally found in the nervous
system. A number of paraneoplastic antibodies
have been characterized, many of which are com-
monly found in lung cancer patients (reviewed
by Darnell and Posner81). Examples are the anti-
CV2/CRMP5 and the anti-Hu antibodies associ-
ated with peripheral neuropathy and autonomic
dysfunction. Detecting a paraneoplastic antibody
can aid in the diagnosis of a previously unknown
tumor, tumor recurrence, or rarely, a new second
malignancy. In cancer patients with known PND,
the most common etiology of CIPN, however, is
still neurotoxic treatment.
A slightly greater incidence of other autoimmune
neuropathies is found in cancer patients compared
with the general population. These neuropathies in-
clude Guillain-Barré syndrome, an acute onset neu-
ropathy that includes acute inflammatory demyelinat-
ing polyneuropathy, acute motor axonal neuropathy,
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
acute motor sensory axonal neuropathy, and Miller
Fisher syndrome. Chronic idiopathic demyelinating
polyneuropathy and multifocal motor neuropathy can
also be seen with greater frequency in cancer patients.
In these cases, the body’s immune system mistargets
the nerve tissues, causing inflammation or injury. Au-
toimmune mechanisms should be considered in HIV
patients with cancer and transplant patients with
neuromuscular symptoms, including neuropathy.
Diabetes is a common pre-existing comorbidity
in cancer patients and is associated with a high in-
cidence of peripheral neuropathy. The neuropathy-
inducing mechanism of diabetes is still not fully
understood, but it is widely attributed to hypergly-
cemia. Impaired glucose tolerance is seen in many
non-diabetic cancer patients and can cause symp-
toms that are clinically similar to those of early
diabetic neuropathy.
Systemic factors like weight loss predispose pa-
tients to focal compression neuropathies. The most
common is peroneal nerve compression at the fibu-
lar head resulting in foot drop and sensory distur-
bance along the lateral aspect of the leg and over
the foot. Patients with head and neck or gastroin-
testinal cancers are examples of patients who may
experience significant weight loss within a short
time period.
Patients with paraproteinemia such as mono-
clonal gammopathy of unknown significance; mul-
tiple myeloma; Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia;
and polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy,
monoclonal gammopathy, and skin changes syn-
drome can develop neuropathy from various mecha-
nisms. Patients may have antibodies against the
nerve, develop secondary amyloid nerve deposition,
or have circulating cryoglobulins causing vasculitis.
However, even in these patients, neuropathy mostly
is secondary to chemotoxicity.
Evaluation
CIPN is typically evaluated under 2 settings. First,
it is commonly assessed during a clinical trial, either
as part of the toxicity profile of a new antineoplastic
drug or as the end point to determine the efficacy of
a neuroprotective agent. Evaluation is also required
during routine oncology practice, when patients
complain of symptoms during the course of treat-
ment. The following questions must be addressed:
 Supplement S-7

Management of Neuropathy in Cancer

• Are the symptoms due to

neuropathy?
• If so, is the neuropathy a re- Pinprick, temperature,
vibration, motor strength
sult of cancer treatment, can-
cer pathology, or other causes Normal
unrelated to cancer?
• Are the symptoms severe Diminished
enough to require intervention?
Lost
• If so, what are the options
for intervention or symptom
management?
• Is modification or discontinu-
ation of the present cancer
treatment necessary?
To date, a gold standard for
evaluating CIPN has not been
defined. The assessment methods AQ-X
currently available include clini-
Hyperesthesia,
cal evaluation (grading systems), contact sensitivity
objective testing, and patient
questionnaires. However, stan-
dardization is lacking across these
modalities. The largely subjective
Normal or decreased
nature of pain and other neuro- knee reflexes
pathic symptoms render objective
measurement inherently difficult.
Poor correlation between objec-
tive findings or physician evalu-
ation and patient-reported symp-
tom severity is frequently noted.
Decreased ankle
Neurophysiologic and Other reflexes
Decreased or normal
Objective Testing strength
Neurophysiologic tests such as elec-
tromyography (EMG), nerve con-
duction studies (NCS), and quan-
titative sensory tests (QST) are
objective quantitative assessments Decreased pin, temperature,
vibration
of the function of the peripheral
nervous system. Limitations to ob-
Figure 1  Symptoms of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.
jective testing include cost and the Adapted from: Simpson DA, Tagliati M, Gonzales-Duarte A, Mongello S. Neurologic
need for subspecialty expertise that manifestations. In: Mildvan D, ed. International Atlas of AIDS, 4th edition. Hoboken,
may not be readily accessible at all NJ: Current Medicine Group LLC; 2007; with permission.
medical sites. Some of these tests
are also invasive, leading to low patient adherence. in a study of 38 cancer patients receiving second-line
Also, reports���������������������������������������
��������������������������������������
of the added value to physician exami- paclitaxel, 71% of patients reported symptoms of
nation or patient questionnaires for CIPN have been paresthesias and numbness in a questionnaire, but only
inconsistent. 82–85
In general, objective
�������������������������
neurophysiolog-
��������������� 48% showed an increase in the vibration perception
ic findings correlate poorly with subjective reports by threshold (QST).83 Changes on EMG and NCS may
patients, with a tendency to underassess. For example, also lag behind the onset of symptoms.

© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
S-8 Supplement
NCCN Task Force Report
A series of laboratory and imaging tests is
available to help evaluate for other possible causes
of neuropathy, such as the paraneoplastic panel
(anti-Hu, anti-Yo, anti-Mag) for PND diagnosis,
blood tests for metabolic or nutritional deficiency-
mediated neuropathy, or MRI for identifying
compressive radiculopathy. However, these are
usually only conducted on outlier cases in the cancer
setting. In-office skin biopsy at proximal and distal
anatomic sites is performed for density measurement
of intra-epidermal nerve fibers to evaluate small fiber
neuropathies. Although highly specific, it has low
sensitivity����������������������������������������
and the same limitations as neurophysi-
ological testing (cost, pain, inadequate correlation
with patient reports).
Clinical Assessment
As opposed to specialized neurophysiologic testing,
clinical assessment (history and physical examination)
is performed by the treating oncologist and typically
the first-line evaluation of CIPN. Patient history
should include associated comorbidity, personal and
family history of neuropathy, alcohol use and other
toxic exposures, and any CIPN experienced during
previous treatment. The temporal profile should be
described in detail (regimen dosage, duration, schedule,
coasting), as well as the characteristics and distribution
of signs and symptoms. Physical examination should
describe clinical features of the neuropathy, such as
sensory abnormalities, deep tendon reflex dysfunc-
tion, motor weakness, pain characteristics, autonomic
symptoms, and most importantly, functional impair-
ment. For individuals with pre-existing or hereditary
neuropathy, related musculoskeletal findings should
be documented. Such abnormalities can include foot
deformities such as high arches, flat fee, or hammer-
toes (deformity of the proximal interphalangeal joint
of the second, third, or fourth toe causing them to be
permanently bent).
A number of physician-based grading systems have
been developed for CIPN assessment. The most widely
used are the NCI-CTCAE, Ajani Sensory, WHO, and
ECOG systems (Table 2).86–89 These systems grade
CIPN from grade 0 (normal) to 4 (severe) or 5 (death).
However, variability is apparent among examiners and
different scoring systems. In a key study conducted
by Postma et al.,90 2 neurologists independently rated
the severity of CIPN in 37 patients using the NCIC-
CTCAE (adapted from the NCI-CTC), WHO,
ECOG, and Ajani scales. In 80% of the cases, the
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
neurologists disagreed on at least one scale; complete
agreement on all 4 scales was noted in only 20%
of patients. Interobserver agreement ranged from
46% (NCIC-CTC) to 84% (WHO), and interscale
agreement for the dichotomy grade 2 and under; grade
3 varied from 68% (WHO and NCIC-CTCAE) to
100% (WHO and ECOG). This study highlights the
disparity in interpretation among physicians, as well
as the substantial variation in grading when using
different grading systems.
The significant problem of variability is in part
caused by the lack of clearly defined evaluation pa-
rameters. For instance, the phrase “interfering with
function but not interfering
�����������������������������������������
�����������������������������
with ������������������������
activities of daily liv-
ing” in grade 2 of the NCI-CTCAE specifies neither
the function nor activity and thus is open to interpre-
tation. Other criticisms include mixing of objective
parameters (e.g., loss of reflex) with subjective symp-
toms (e.g., paresthesias), lack of pain assessment, and
failure to account for chronic toxicity and changes in
symptoms.91 More recently, a newer tool, Total Neurop-
athy Score (TNS),92 was developed that was reported to
be more sensitive than the NCI-CTCAE in detecting
changes in CIPN.93
Patient-Based Evaluation
As previously discussed, underestimation and
underreport���������������������������������������
ing������������������������������������
of CIPN using
���������������������������
physician-based meth-
ods is substantial.57–59 Neuropathic symptoms such as
pain and paresthesias are predominantly subjective,
and individuals may have different thresholds of tol-
erance for these symptoms. Direct input from the pa-
tient is therefore critical in the evaluation, because
the requirement for intervention is largely based
on patient preference. Patient-based instruments
that have been developed to address this need in-
clude the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy
(FACT)/Gynecology Oncology Group-Neurotox-
icity,94 FACT-Taxane,95 and Patient Neurotoxicity
Questionnaire (PNQ).1 These are self-administered
questionnaires designed to determine the level and
incidence of clinically significant functional impair-
ment resulting from CIPN.
Recommendations
For routine oncology practice, the Task Force panel
strongly encourages physicians to actively query can-
����
cer patients on signs and symptoms of neuropathy.
Before neurotoxic therapy is administered, a baseline
assessment should be performed and recorded. Iden-
 Supplement S-9

Management of Neuropathy in Cancer

Table 2 Commonly Used Physician-Based Grading Scales for Evaluation of CIPN

Scale Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
WHO 87
Paresthesias and/ Severe Intolerable Paralysis NA
or decreased paresthesias paresthesias and/or
tendon reflexes and/or mild marked motor loss
weakness
ECOG88 Decreased deep Absent deep Disabling sensory Respiratory NA
tendon reflexes, tendon loss, severe dysfunction
mild paresthesias reflexes, severe peripheral secondary to
or constipation paresthesias or neuropathic pain, weakness,
constipation, obstipation, severe obstipation
mild weakness weakness, bladder requiring
dysfunction surgery,
paralysis
confining
patient to bed/
wheelchair
NCI-CTCAE (v3.0)89
Neuropathy-sensory Asymptomatic: Sensory Sensory alteration Disabling Death
loss of deep alteration or or paresthesia
tendon reflexes paresthesia interfering with
or pasresthesia (including ADL
(including tingling),
tingling) but not interfering with
interfering with function but
function not with ADL
Neuropathy-motor Asymptomatic, Symptomatic Weakness Life- Death
weakness by weakness interfering with threatening:
exam/testing interfering with ADL: bracing or disabling
only function but assistance to walk (e.g.,paralysis)
not interfering indicated
with ADL
Ajani86
Sensory Paresthesia, Mild objective Severe paresthesia, Complete NA
decreased deep abnormality, moderate objective sensory loss, loss
tendon reflexes absence of abnormality, of function
deep tendon severe functional
reflexes, mild abnormality
to moderate
functional
abnormality
Motor Mild or transient Persistent Unable to ambulate Complete NA
muscle weakness moderate paralysis
weakness but
ambulatory

Abbreviations: ADL, activities of daily living; CIPN, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy; NA, not applicable; NCI-
CTCAE, National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.

tifying pre-existing conditions that may predispose
patients to and potentially exacerbate CIPN is im-
perative. Of special concern are patients with hered-
itary motor and sensory neuropathies, such as Char-
cot-Marie-Tooth disease, who may develop severe
neuropathic paralysis when receiving vincristine.
Routine assessment should continue during
therapy. Because most cases of CIPN progress with
dose accumulation, early report of mild cases is im-
portant for detecting the onset of neuropathy dur-
ing continuous monitoring. For a list of diagnostic
features of CIPN that distinguishes it from other
types of neuropathy������������������������������
, see Chemotherapy������������
-I����������
nduced ���
P��
e-
ripheral Neuropathy (page S-2).
The main goal of routine clinical assessment is
to determine whether the patient is experiencing

© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
S-10 Supplement
NCCN Task Force Report
significant neuropathic symptoms that require inter-
vention. For this purpose, the use of grading systems
is helpful but not sufficient alone. In particular, pain
is a major symptom that is not well addressed by ex-
isting scales. The panel suggests the following pain
assessment tools commonly used under other clini-
cal settings: Brief Pain Inventory,96,97 Neuropathic
Pain Scale,98,99 and Leeds Assessment of Neuropath-
ic Symptoms and Signs Pain Scale (LANSS).100,101
Whether to intervene with the neuropathic symp-
toms that arise depends on patient preference and
the medical judgment of the physician.
Table 3 lists recommendations by the NCCN
Task Force panel on the key points to include dur-
ing assessment of neuropathy on a cancer patient.
In addition to a history and physical examination,
functional assessment is critical. Simple skill tests
and questions about activities of daily living provide
important information. Physicians can also refer to
existing patient questionnaires.1,94,95
Panelists agree that referral to a specialist can
also be helpful. This may be a neurologist or phys-
iatrist (specialist in physical medicine and rehabili-
tation) experienced in managing neuromuscular
disorders in the cancer setting. When pain is a pre-
dominant issue, referral to a supportive care or pain
management specialist may improve overall patient
management. The exact point of referral will de-
pend on physician discretion and the infrastructure
of individual medical centers, but it is important
that such a system be in place. In general, oncolo-
gists should consider referral when the patient case
is out of their usual clinical experience, such as
when a patient has atypical signs, severe symptoms,
or underlying neuropathic disorders.
Specialists can help delineate the neuropathic
etiology, which may affect decisions about cancer
treatment, suggest treatment, or point to resources
for patient support and rehabilitation (see Manage-
ment of Functional Deficits, page S-17). However,
the panel emphasized that specialist scheduling
should be in parallel with ongoing oncologist vis-
its so that logistics do not delay appropriate anti-
neoplastic treatment. Communication between the
treating physician and specialist is essential.
Objective neurophysiologic testing �������������
is�����������
not suffi-
ciently reliable to be used alone for decision making.
But such testing may be used as an adjunct to clini-
cal assessment for confirming or ruling out a diag-
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
nosis. Similarly, the need for additional laboratory
testing, imaging, or biopsying depends on the initial
clinical assessment. The decision to order these tests
is usually made by the specialist.
For clinical trials, multimodality assessment is
preferable. Simple QST like the Von Frey or Neuro-
pen may be easier for standardization than tests that
require extensive setup or equipment. Given the
high variability of commonly used physician-based
scoring systems, multicenter studies must reach a
consensus on the grading scale as well as interpreta-
tion of the chosen scale. As pointed out by panel-
ists, pain assessment and functional impairment are
critical endpoints, and the integration of pain scales
(Brief Pain Inventory, LANSS, Neuropathic Pain
Scale), patient-based questionnaires (FACT, PNQ)
and skill tests (timed pellet retrieval, pegboard test)
is strongly encouraged.
Prevention
Many agents have been proposed for preventing neu-
ropathy caused by antineoplastic drugs. The mecha-
nisms by which most of these drugs might minimize
neuropathy are based on limited preclinical data and
informed opinion. Most of these agents have been
studied in clinical trials with designs inadequate for
definitive assessment of the impact on neuropathy.
A few have been evaluated in randomized controlled
trials. Most have been assessed during platinum-
based chemotherapy. Table 4 lists these agents, the
proposed mechanism for preventing CIPN, and find-
ings from clinical trials.121
Vitamin E may mitigate neuropathy associated
with platinum-based chemotherapy. Three small,
open-labeled studies randomized 30 to 47 cancer
patients receiving chemotherapy mostly consisting
of cisplatin to vitamin E or control.102–104 The ac-
tive arms were consistently associated with a lower
incidence of CIPN (21%–31%) compared with the
control arm (69%–86%), with statistical significance
(P < .03). The severity of neuropathy as measured by
toxicity scores was also reduced.
A double-blinded, randomized, placebo-con-
trolled study of 81 patients undergoing cisplatin
therapy is ongoing. Interim analysis of the first 50
patients showed a significantly lower median toxic-
ity score in the supplement group.105 Because vita-
min E is an antioxidant, concerns have been raised

Management of Neuropathy in Cancer
about the possibility that it may suppress chemo-
therapeutic efficacy by interfering with the oxida-
tive breakdown of DNA and membranes of cancer
cells. Preclinical models have shown no difference in
cisplatin-induced tumor inhibition with or without
vitamin E.104,122 In a randomized study of 136 lung
cancer patients receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin,
multiple high-dose antioxidant supplementation
including vitamin E affected neither the response
rate nor survival.123 These results are reassuring, but
a well-designed, adequately-powered trial to con-
firm the safety of vitamin E is important before its
general adoption.
Intravenous administration of calcium and mag-
nesium (CaMg) has been proposed as prophylaxis
against neurologic damage induced by oxaliplatin,
on the basis that heightened extracellular calcium
could facilitate closing of sodium channels, thereby
decreasing the hyperexcitability of neurons exposed
to oxaliplatin.124 Two concurrent randomized con-
trolled trials, N04C7 and CONcePT, were initiated
to test the effect of CaMg on oxaliplatin-related neu-
ropathy. Both trials were terminated after CONcePT
investigators reported diminished response to che-
motherapy in the CaMg arm.125 After study termina-
tion, however, a subsequent independent radiology
review suggested the opposite finding with respect to
tumor response.121,126
Despite early termination, the N04C7 study re-
vealed a reduction in CIPN incidence in the active
arm.106 Gamelin et al.127 released an interim report
on their multicenter, double-blind trial (Neuroxa)
randomizing patients on the FOLFOX4 regimen.
There was no difference in the response or survival
rates between the arms, but significantly lower fre-
quency and severity of neuropathy were seen in one
group (blind not yet broken). Future updates should
clarify the effectiveness and safety of CaMg.
Despite various rationales for their evaluation,
other drugs such as amifostine, nimodipine, Org
2766, and rhuLIF have all failed to show clinical
benefit in randomized trials. Recently, new agents,
including acetyl-L-carnitine, alpha lipoic acid, and
vitamin B12/B6, have entered phase III randomized
clinical testing.
Conclusions
Although several agents have shown potentially
encouraging results as mitigators of neuropathy,
current data are inadequate to recommend any for
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
Supplement S-11
Table 3 Key Points to Report During Clinical
Assessment of CIPN
History
• Personal history of neuropathy and CIPN from previous
cancer treatment
• Personal and family history of hereditary neuropathy
(patients with Charcot-Marie Tooth disease should
avoid vincristine-based chemotherapy)
• Related comorbid conditions (e.g., diabetes, HIV,
Guillain-Barré syndrome, CIDP, radiculopathy)
• Alcohol use
• Temporal profile: regimen dosage, duration, schedule,
“coasting” effects
• Symptoms
• Type: sensory, motor, or autonomic
• Distribution: distal symmetric or asymmetric
• Severity
• Pain assessment: BPI, LANSS, NPS
• Time course of CIPN, including onset and resolution of
symptoms
• Treatment delays or discontinuation related to CIPN
Physical Examination
• Sensory assessment: light touch, vibration,
proprioception, pin-prick, temperature
• Deep tendon reflex: presence, absence, diminishment
• Motor weakness
• Autonomic symptoms (e.g., constipation, orthostatic
hypotension, urinary dysfunction, sexual dysfunction)
• Related musculoskeletal abnormalities (e.g.,
hammertoes, high or flattened arches)
Sample Questions for Patient
• Do you feel numbness or tingling in your hands or
feet?
• Do you feel pain in your hands and feet? (Rate it on a
scale of 0 to 10.)
• Do you feel like having gloves and stockings on?
• Do these sensations bother you? Are they getting
worse?
• Do you feel weakness in your arms and legs?
• Do you drop things often?
• Have you fallen recently?
• Do you have difficulty walking or climbing stairs?
• Do these sensations interfere with your work or daily
activities?
Examples of Functional Assessment Skill Tests
• Getting up and straight-line walking (observe gait and
balance)
• Name writing
• Buttoning
• Timed pellet retrieval (for clinical trials)
• Pegboard test (for clinical trials)
Abbreviations: BPI, Brief Pain Inventory; CIDP, chronic
idiopathic demyelinating polyneuropathy; CIPN,
chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy; LANSS, Leeds
Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Pain Scale;
NPS, Neuropathic Pain Scale.
S-12 Supplement
NCCN Task Force Report
Table 4 Proposed Agents for Preventing CIPN
Drug Mechanism of Action
Agents with Positive Findings in Randomized Controlled Trials
Vitamin E Antioxidant/minimizes neuronal damage
Ca++/Mg++ Facilitates Na channel function; binds
oxalate (metabolite of oxaliplatin)
Glutamine Upregulation of nerve growth factor
Glutathione Hampers accumulation of platinum adducts
in DRG
N-acetylcysteine Antioxidant; increases blood concentrations
of glutathione
Oxcarbazepine Inhibits high-frequency firing of nerves;
modulates ion channels
Xaliproden Non-peptide neurotrophic agent
Agents With Negative Findings in Randomized Controlled Trials
Amifostine Detoxifies chemotherapy; facilitates DNA
repair
Nimodipine Calcium channel antagonist
Org 2766 Nerve growth factor family,
adrenocorticotrophic hormone analog
rhuLIF Neuroprotective cytokine
Additional Agents Being Tested in Ongoing Phase III Randomized Controlled Trials
Vitamin B12/B6 Essential for nerve function
Acetyl-L-carnitine Oxidation of free fatty acids/nerve
regeneration
Alpha lipoic acid Antioxidant
Abbreviations: CIPN, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy; DRG, dorsal root ganglion; NCI- CTC, National Cancer
Institute Common Toxicity Criteria.
*ClinicalTrials.gov identification number
ordinary use in patients, and the panel did not en-
dorse any of the existing agents. This lack of en-
dorsement reflects the small sample size and vari-
able treatment regimens, modest observed effects,
and lingering concerns over impairment of efficacy
for anti-cancer therapy. In 2007, Albers et al.128
performed a systematic review of 16 randomized
controlled studies of neuroprotective agents (ami-
fostine, metal chelator diethyldithiocarbamate,
glutathione, Org 2766, and vitamin E) and found
the data inconclusive. Separate literature on the
use of neuron-protective agents has developed from
the evaluation and treatment of non-cancer–relat-
ed neuropathy, predominantly diabetic neuropathy.
Whether experience from non-chemotherapy–re-
lated neuropathies is relevant for clinical recom-
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
Findings From Randomized Controlled Trials (N)
CIPN incidence and severity reduced (30-47)102–104
CIPN severity reduced (81)105
Ongoing trial: NCT00363129*
CIPN incidence reduced (104)106
CIPN incidence reduced (86)107
CIPN incidence reduced/trend towards reduction
(50-151)108–110
Incidence of grade 2-4 neuropathy reduced (14)111
Neuropathy incidence reduced (32)112
Shift of CIPN from grade 3 to grade 2 (649)113
Ongoing trial: NCT00603577*
Not effective (66)114
Improvement on NCI-CTC scale but not on patient
questionnaire (72)115
Not effective; randomized trial closed early (51)116
Vibration perception maintained (55)117
Not effective (150-196)118,119
Not effective (117)120
Ongoing trial: NCT00659269*
New trial: NCT00775645*
Ongoing trial: NCT00705029*
mendations for cancer patients is unclear. Larger
randomized controlled studies specifically in cancer
are needed to delineate the safety and efficacy of
neuropathy prophylaxis, although these may be met
with several challenges, as discussed previously.
The panel was concerned by the inconsistency of
end points used among the various trials examining
neuropathy and potential interventions. Frequently,
discordance is apparent between symptom reports
and objective measures, and satisfactory neuropathy
evaluation tools are currently lacking, as discussed
previously. Panelists agreed that multimodal mea-
surement of functionality is of primary importance
and the incorporation of simple skill tests (e.g., the
pegboard test) will add valuable information at a rela-
tively low cost.

Management of Neuropathy in Cancer
Treatment
Non-Cancer–Related Neuropathy
Treatment of neuropathy in cancer patients remains
a challenge and depends on etiology. As discussed,
a main complication is that an individual patient
may experience neuropathic symptoms caused by a
combination of factors. Distinguishing CIPN from
other types of neuropathy is important in deciding
whether the antineoplastic treatment needs to be
modified. Damage to the peripheral nervous system
at other levels, including the nerve root and plexus,
may mimic peripheral neuropathy. Care should be
taken in evaluation and exclusion of such disorders,
particularly in patients with a history of degenera-
tive spine disease or radiation therapy that affects
the nerve root or plexus. Identifying underlying neu-
ropathy is essential, because specific treatment or
management strategies are available for certain non-
cancer–related neuropathies:
• Hereditary: cancer patients with Charcot-Marie-
Tooth disease should avoid vincristine-based
chemotherapy74
• Diabetes: control of glucose level and weight,
exercise, and pain relief can be helpful
• Alcohol: avoiding alcohol, improving nutrition
(vitamin supplement), and pain relief can be
helpful
• HIV: controlling HIV and selecting medication
that has a low risk of contributing to neuropathy
• Guillain-Barré syndrome: intravenous immuno-
globulin (IVIg) and apheresis129
• Chronic idiopathic demyelinating polyneuropa-
thy (CIDP): steroids, intravenous immunoglob-
ulin, and apheresis
• Mononeuropathy (i.e., median mononeuropathy
causing carpel tunnel syndrome, ulnar mono-
neuropathy): resting hand splints, physical or
occupational therapy, corticosteroid injection,
surgical decompression (it should be noted that
surgical decompression in patients on active an-
tineoplastic treatment was thought to be rela-
tively contraindicated by the panel)
Cancer-Related Neuropathy
In most instances, control of the tumor remains a
priority for stabilizing or improving cancer-related
neuropathic conditions. Surgery remains the most
efficient way to relieve symptoms, particularly when
the neuropathy is the result of direct tumor compres-
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
Supplement S-13
sion. Radiation therapy and chemotherapy may also
be of benefit when treating tumors responsive to
these therapeutic modalities. Steroids or intravenous
immunoglobulin may be effective against specific
subtypes of PND such as Lambert-Eaton myasthenic
syndrome and paraneoplastic dermatomyositis.130
Randomized trials have shown brief efficacy of
intravenous immunoglobulin in treating anti-MAG
neuropathy.131,132 Current treatment schema also in-
cludes rituximab133 and apheresis. For the rare poly-
neuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclo-
nal gammopathy, and skin changes syndrome, surgery
and radiation against the plasmaproliferative disorder
is the mainstay of treatment; steroids are also effective.
CIPN
To date, no approved effective treatment is avail-
able for CIPN, although a number of medications
are useful for pain control (see subsequent sections).
Because CIPN symptoms may progress with cumu-
lating exposure, close monitoring is necessary dur-
ing chemotherapy. In severe cases, dose reduction or
treatment discontinuation may be indicated at the
discretion of the treating oncologist, but this must be
weighed against the oncologic risks.
Symptom Management: Pain Medications
Various pharmacologic agents have been tested in
symptom control trials to alleviate established neu-
ropathy. Drugs that have been approved by the FDA
have been so based on their efficacy in reducing pain
intensity for other types of neuropathic pain disor-
ders, mainly diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic
neuralgia. Most clinical trials on the use of other
drugs to moderate CIPN have failed to yield posi-
tive findings,134–137 although results from 2 recent
studies are more encouraging.138,139 To date, no agent
has been approved specifically for treating CIPN.
Table 5 lists the medications that are currently be-
ing used off-label to relieve the positive symptoms
of CIPN (pain, paresthesias, dysesthesias, allodynia).
It should be noted that none of these agents are ef-
fective in the treatment of negative neuropathic
symptoms such as weakness or the loss of sensory
modalities, including light touch or proprioception.
Many of these agents should be administered at a
low starting dose and slowly titrated to the dose that
confers the best efficacy with limited side effects.
Specifications for administration and side effects are
listed. Readers can also refer to the NCCN Clinical
S-14 Supplement

NCCN Task Force Report

Table 5 Common Agents for Pain Management in Neuropathy

Duration of
Drug Starting Dose Titration Maximum Dose Adequate Trial Potential Side Effects
Duloxetine 20–30 mg/d No evidence that 120 mg/d 2 wk Nausea, xerostomia,
higher dose is constipation, diarrhea
more effective
Gabapentin* 100–300 mg increase by 3600 mg 1–2 wk at max Somnolence, dizziness, GI
nightly or 100–300 mg 3 (depending on tolerated dose symptoms, mild edema,
100–300 mg 3 times/day, every absorption) cognitive impairment
times/d 1–7 days (elderly), exacerbation of
gait problems
5% Lidocaine Maximum of 3 Non-applicable 3 patches 2 wk Rash/erythema
patch patches daily

Opioids 5–15 mg every Convert to long- No ceiling effect 4–6 wk Constipation, nausea,
(oxycodone, 4h acting after 1 wk, vomiting (self-limited),
morphine, titrate based on sedation, confusion,
methadone) breakthrough use respiratory depression
Pregabalin 25–50 mg 3 Increase by 50 mg/ 200 mg 3 times/d Unclear (likely Dizziness, somnolence,
times/d dose after 1 wk 2–4 wk) xerostomia, edema,
blurred vision, decreased
concentration
Tramadol 50 mg 1–2/d Increase by 50-100 400 mg/d (100 4 wk Dizziness, constipation,
mg/d, individual mg 4 times/d); nausea, somnolence,
doses every 3-7 elderly 300 mg/d orthostatic hypotension,
days increased risk of seizure,
serotonin syndrome
Tricyclic Starting dose: Increase by 10-25 75–150 mg; may 6-8 wk; 1-2 wk Cardiovascular disease
antidepressants 10-25 mg mg every 3-7 days increase if blood at max dose (needs screening),
(amitriptyline,* nightly level of drug anticholinergic
nortriptyline,* plus metabolite effects, interact with
desipramine) <100 ng/mL drugs metabolized
by cytochrome P450
2D6 (e.g., cimetidine,
phenothiazine)

*Negative results in randomized controlled clinical trials on chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy

Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Adult Cancer Pain
(to view the most recent version of these guidelines,
visit the NCCN Web site at www.nccn.org) for pain
management strategies in cancer patients.
Antiepileptic Drugs: Gabapentin is an anti-epileptic
drug widely used for neuropathic pain. In randomized
controlled trials involving mixed populations, gaba-
pentin was found to relieve pain and improve sleep,
mood, and quality of life.140–144 However, in a double-
blinded, controlled, crossover trial (n = 115) gabap-
entin was no better than placebo in reducing CIPN.137
Pregabalin has the same mechanism of action
as gabapentin and is approved for the treatment of
diabetic neuropathy and post-herpetic neuralgia.
Its efficacy in reducing neuropathic pain has been
shown in 6 randomized trials.145–150 A phase IV trial
of pregabalin (NCT00380874) in advanced colorec-
tal cancer patients was terminated due to insufficient
conditional power to detect differences. Nonethe-
less, panelists reported from their clinical experience
that both pregabalin and gabapentin may be helpful
in treating pain associated with CIPN. Compared
with gabapentin, pregabalin has similar and perhaps
milder side effects, faster onset of action, better ab-
sorption, and less need for dosage titration.
Local Anesthetics: The 5% lidocaine patch has the
advantage of minimal side effects (local rash) and
ease of administration. It has been shown to alleviate
allodynia (a form of dysesthesia) mainly in patients
with post-herpetic neuropathy,151 but has not been
shown to have a significant impact on pain intensity
in cancer patients with postsurgical pain.152

© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009

Management of Neuropathy in Cancer
Antidepressants: Duloxetine is a serotonin and
norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) that
is effective in reducing pain in patients with dia-
betic neuropathy.153–155 It has the advantage of be-
ing fast-acting, with rapid onset of action within
the first few doses. However, duloxetine should be
avoided in patients on tamoxifen because it will
decrease the concentration of endoxifen, an active
metabolite of tamoxifen. As a serotonin reuptake
inhibitor, duloxetine is relatively contraindicated
when used with other drugs that affect serotonin
reuptake, including the selective serotonin reup-
take inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, tramadol,
and triptans commonly used to treat migraines for
fear of causing the potentially fatal serotonin syn-
drome. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of
duloxetine in cancer patients with CIPN is ongo-
ing (NCT00489411). Another SNRI, venlafaxine,
has recently been reported to reduce the incidence
of acute oxaliplatin-induced neuropathic pain com-
pared with placebo (35% vs. 76%) in a small trial
of 54 patients.139
Tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs; amitripty-
line, nortriptyline, and desipramine) are FDA-ap-
proved for relieving symptoms of depression, not
neuropathic pain. Despite this, they were the first
class of nonopioid medications to gain widespread
use in the treatment of neuropathic pain, based
on benefits seen primarily in diabetic patients.156
Unfortunately, studies of these agents are limited
by substantial side effects (high drop-out rates)
and their pharmacologic interactions with drugs
metabolized by cytochrome P450 2D6. Their po-
tential negative impact on cardiovascular func-
tion necessitates screening, especially in elderly
patients. Despite TCA’s efficacy on diabetic neu-
ropathy, 2 randomized, placebo-controlled trials
(n = 44 and 51, respectively) of amitriptyline and
nortriptyline yielded negative results in patients
with CIPN.134,135 Given these limitations, TCAs
are not typically used as a first-line pain medica-
tion for CIPN. More recently, a topical gel formu-
lation BAK-PLO (baclofen, amitriptyline, and ket-
amine in pluronic lecithin organogel) moderately
improved CIPN symptoms in a randomized trial of
208 cancer patients.138
Opioids: Tramadol is a centrally acting analgesic. It
is often considered a mild opioid but has other an-
algesic properties and may be considered a novel
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
Supplement S-15
agent. It has shown efficacy in relieving painful dia-
betic neuropathy and improving patients’ quality of
life.157,158 The maximum dose is 400 mg per day for
most adults and 300 mg per day for elderly patients.
The opioids morphine and oxycodone provide
analgesia and lessened sleep interference for dia-
betic neuropathy when used alone or in combina-
tion with gabapentin.141,159–161 Task Force members
pointed out that although the opioid methadone is
used frequently, its use is complicated by a very long
half-life, effect on QT intervals, and many drug–
drug interactions that can result in serious adverse
events. Current recommendations suggest that only
clinicians with experience administering methadone
should prescribe this medication. Other opioids (tra-
madol, morphine, oxycodone) that have been tested
for neuropathy may be considered safer alternatives
in treating CIPN.
Other medications that have been studied in-
clude lamotrigine,136 selective serotonin reuptake
inhibitors, mexiletine, 0.75% capsaicin, and intra-
venous lidocaine. However, these are not recom-
mended for routine use because of mixed results or
safety issues.
Recommendations: Currently, the general approach
to pain medication for CIPN is to choose an agent
based on the clinician’s experience and expectation
of efficacy and safety, and titrate that agent to the
maximal tolerated dose. If a single agent is effective,
then it should be continued. If a single agent con-
fers partial but incomplete benefit, then a second
agent with a different mechanism of action should
be chosen and added. If the first agent is ineffective
or poorly tolerated, then it should be discontinued
and another agent chosen and titrated. Often many
agents will be needed for adequate analgesia. Panel-
ists agreed that the clinical context of the treatment
will determine the choice of medication. For exam-
ple, a fast-acting agent with low risk of nausea will
be most suitable for a patient going through active
adjuvant chemotherapy before surgery. Unfortunate-
ly, there is inadequate evidence on the best order of
administration and combination. Two randomized,
double-blinded trials in 41 to 338 patients, primar-
ily with diabetic neuropathy, showed more effective
pain reduction with the combination of an opioid
(morphine or oxycodone) and gabapentin compared
with gabapentin alone, with little exacerbation of
side effects.141,160
S-16 Supplement
NCCN Task Force Report
Symptom Management: Neurostimulation
Therapies
Medication is often insufficient to mitigate neuro-
pathic pain, and alternative nonpharmacological
therapies have been investigated. In particular, elec-
trical stimulation therapies, typically administered
by a specialist, have elicited some benefits. They are
generally considered reversible, although they vary
widely in their degree of invasiveness. These neuro-
stimulation techniques are generally based on the
gate control theory proposed by Melzack and Wall;162
they are designed to relieve pain by somatotopically
“masking” the affected area with non-painful stimu-
lation of A-beta afferent fibers, thereby blocking
out the painful stimuli. Hence these modalities are
seldom effective towards patients with deafferented
nerves leading to numbness or tingling. The Euro-
pean Federation of Neurological Forces (EFNS)163
recently produced a detailed review and recom-
mendations on these techniques for neuropathic
pain. As with pain medications, most evidence sup-
porting neurostimulation came from studies on dia-
betic or other types of neuropathy. Data on CIPN
are anecdotal.
Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) involves the sur-
gical placement of electrodes into the epidural space
that can send non-noxious electrical stimulation
across the spine to displace the painful sensation.
SCS has been shown to provide good pain relief in
small case series of patients with refractory CIPN
(n = 2–4)164,165 and other types of neuropathy (n =
6–19).166–169 Long-term effects up to 8 years are re-
ported. Of note, SCS is an invasive technique that
includes the risks and costs of surgery, although a
temporary lead is typically tested for a trial period
before permanent implantation. There were initial
concerns that cancer patients with SCS may suffer
neurologic injury during an MRI, but published case
reports as well as panelists’ experience indicate that
it is safe to perform MRI with the SCS temporarily
turned off.170–172
Similar techniques include motor cortex stimu-
lation and deep brain stimulation, which require
surgical implantation into the brain. These proce-
dures are highly invasive and have little evidence
to support their use for treating neuropathic pain.
High frequency (5–20 Hz) repetitive transcranial
magnetic stimulation is a noninvasive technique
that applies the coil of a magnetic stimulator above
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
the scalp. There is evidence that it alleviates pain for
post-stroke central pain syndromes, but its effects are
short-lived and moderate.163
Electrical nerve stimulation, either transcutane-
ous (TENS) or percutaneous, originally developed
in the 1960s for treating nociceptive and muscu-
loskeletal syndromes, uses portable skin patches to
pass electrical current through the cutaneous tissues.
Nine small trials involving an aggregate of approxi-
mately 200 patients with neuropathic pain generally
associate TENS with a positive effect on pain con-
trol (reviewed by Cruccu et al.163).
One randomized study involving 41 diabetic
patients showed a higher response rate with high-
frequency muscle stimulation (69%) than with
TENS (25%). However, the study had no placebo.173
Other studies have shown that acupuncture-like low
frequency TENS is better than sham stimulations.
An emerging technique called anodyne therapy
uses monochromatic near-infrared photo energy
to increase circulation to nerves and reduce pain.
Small studies (n = 21–27) have shown a benefit for
diabetic patients,174,175 but a strong placebo effect
was present in 2 randomized, sham-controlled tri-
als.174,176 Several panelists noted that burns are a
potential risk in patients with sensory deficits and
that no efficacy studies have been performed in on-
cology patients.
Recommendations: Current literature is inconclu-
sive on the benefits of neurostimulation in treating
CIPN, and more rigorous studies are needed. Despite
a lack of evidence, panelists generally agreed that
TENS can be a helpful adjuvant therapy for CIPN
patients with contraindications to or for whom pain
medication is ineffective, considering its ease of ap-
plication, reversibility, and relatively low cost.
Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Therapies
According to the National Center for Complemen-
tary and Alternative medicine, complementary and
alternative medicine (CAM) is a group of diverse
medical and health care systems, practices, and prod-
ucts that are not generally considered part of con-
ventional medicine. CAM therapies have achieved
widespread use among patients with neurologic dis-
orders. A questionnaire-based study found that 77 of
180 (43%) patients with peripheral neuropathy used
CAM, such as megavitamins (35%) and acupunc-
ture (30%).177 In another report of 450 patients, pa-

Management of Neuropathy in Cancer
tients indicated massage (35%), meditation (18%),
and acupuncture (10%) as common self-care strate-
gies for HIV-related peripheral neuropathy.178
Clinical studies investigating natural products
as prophylactics for neuropathy and neurostimula-
tion techniques for pain management have been
discussed in previous sections. Among other CAM
approaches, most research focused on acupuncture.
Originally from Chinese traditional medicine, mod-
ern acupuncture is based on the theory that insertion
and manipulation of a needle at specific acupuncture
points in the body induces signals in afferent nerves
that subsequently regulate spinal signal transmission
and neural pain perception. This theory is supported
by preclinical studies and animal models (reviewed
by Wang et al.179).
Alimi et al.180 randomized 90 cancer patients
with mainly neuropathic pain to auricular acupunc-
ture and 2 placebo groups (acupuncture or auricular
seeds at placebo points). At 2 months, pain inten-
sity decreased by 36% from baseline with acupunc-
ture versus 2% with placebo (P < .0001). Another
randomized controlled trial enrolling 250 patients
with HIV-related neuropathy found that both acu-
puncture and amitriptyline reduced symptoms, with
a favorable trend over placebo that did not reach
statistical significance.181 A non-randomized trial
of 47 patients with idiopathic neuropathy reported
improvement both in symptoms and objective NCS
measurements for 76% of patients receiving acu-
puncture compared with only 15% receiving best
medical care.182 For CIPN, only one pilot, single-
arm, prospective case series of 5 patients was per-
formed. The pain scores were lowered in all patients
(average 8 points reduced to average 3 points) after
two 6-week courses of acupuncture.183
Evidence is scarce on the efficacy of other CAM
therapies on neuropathic symptoms. Case series of
successful treatment of neuropathic pain by biofeed-
back have been reported,184 but no data from pro-
spective trials are available. Dietary supplements
have also been studied for prevention and treat-
ment of neuropathy. They include alpha-lipoic acid,
acetyl-L-carnitine, benfotiamine, methylcobala-
min, topical capsaicin, vitamin E, glutathione, fo-
late, pyridoxine, biotin, myo-inositol, omega-3 and
-6 fatty acids, L-arginine, L-glutamine, taurine, N-
acetylcysteine, zinc, magnesium, chromium, and St.
John’s wort.185
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
Supplement S-17
Conclusions: The increasingly widespread use of
CAM therapies among patients and the current
paucity of evidence on their safety and efficacy in
treating CIPN raise the need for more controlled,
sufficiently powered studies. Acupuncture is a more
promising approach supported by scientific plausibil-
ity, although the technique lacks standardization. As
with TENS, it is noninvasive and relatively inexpen-
sive, and it may be considered as an adjunct option
in treating patients with medication-resistant CIPN.
Several natural products available to the public as
dietary supplements also showed promise, although
their definitive efficacy has not been established.
Management of Functional Deficits
Cancer patients with CIPN often present with sig-
nificant functional deficits especially as their condi-
tion worsens. These deficits may include decreased
balance, gait abnormalities, muscle weakness, and
sensory loss, which can lead to an increased fall
risk, difficulties in performing activities of daily liv-
ing, safety concerns, and diminished participation.
Rehabilitation specialists, particularly physical and
occupational therapists, are uniquely qualified to as-
sess patients with CIPN and provide interventional
strategies (both remedial and compensatory) to help
patients either reverse or safely deal with these inter-
related deficits.
The brain requires sensory and proprioceptive
information from the periphery to maintain balance;
therefore, the sensory losses associated with CIPN
can result in balance deficits. For example, Visovsky
and Daly186 recorded a slight decline of 12% in bal-
ance over the course of 12-week carboplatin treat-
ment in cancer patients. Similarly, Wampler et al.187
significantly correlated increasing balance deficits
with increasing CIPN severity in 20 breast cancer
patients who had received taxane chemotherapy.
Clinical assessments of balance can be made using
simple tests such as the Single Limb Stance Test (time
patient can stand on one leg), Tandem Standing Test
(time patient can stand heel to toe), or the Timed Up
and Go test (the patient stands up, walks 10 feet, returns
and sits down), or more complex tests such as the Berg
balance test or the Rhomberg balance test. Computer-
based biomechanical analysis of balance, which pro-
vides quantitative assessment, is increasingly available
for use in a clinical setting.188 Questionnaires like the
Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale are also
used clinically to evaluate balance.
S-18 Supplement
NCCN Task Force Report
Therapeutic interventions aimed at improving
balance typically involve progressive task training
starting with static standing activities (firm and hard
surfaces) and then advancing first to static standing
coupled with simple manipulation activities (e.g.,
holding a glass of water, passing a basketball), then
to walking (different surfaces) and finally to walk-
ing coupled with simple manipulation activities.189
Modification or elimination of visual input can also
be included to make these tasks more demanding.
In a case report discussing a patient with stage III
breast cancer with docetaxel-associated neuropathy,
such a program (45–60 minutes per session, 2 times
per week, 4 weeks total) improved the patient’s sense
of balance.190
Gait training and lower extremity strengthening
exercises are important therapeutic activities that
improve balance, as shown by a study (n = 20) of
diabetic patients undergoing intense daily strength-
ening exercises (e.g., toe raises, heel raises, wall
slides). Compared with a control exercise regimen,
these strengthening exercise significantly enhanced
balance.191 Assistive devices including canes, walk-
ers, wheelchairs, and ankle-foot orthoses may also be
recommended, less to reverse this deficit and more to
compensate for it.
Although the incidence of falls in patients with
CIPN has not been reported, the risk for falls is 5
times greater in older patients with peripheral neu-
ropathy than in healthy age-matched controls.192
Therefore, rehabilitation staff must be particularly
alert to an increased fall risk in patients with CIPN.
Asking cancer patients whether they have fallen re-
cently is a simple screening question for determining
heightened fall risk. Impaired gait and balance are
the most reliable predictors of this serious medical
problem.193 Results from clinical tests such as the
timed up and go, single limb stance, gait analysis,
and sensory assessment also provide further assess-
ment of fall risk in CIPN patients.
Therapeutic interventions aimed at reducing
fall risk typically include lower extremity strength-
ening exercises and gait training combined with
balance training and issuance of assistive devices.
Patient and caregiver education regarding issues
such as recognizing potential environmental haz-
ards, performing necessary home and environmen-
tal modifications (removing throw rugs, installing
adequate lighting, and maximizing visual con-
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
trasts), and increasing diligence when the patient
is in a novel environment should be provided. For
patients with CIPN who also have cognitive, vi-
sual, or auditory deficits, caregiver education is of
particular importance.
The presence of peripheral neuropathy can also
contribute to detrimental changes in gait patterns.
In a study of 24 older women, those with peripheral
neuropathy showed a gait pattern that was slower
and less efficient as measured by various gait param-
eters (e.g., increased step time) than the control
group, with differences magnified under challenging
walking environments.194 Clinical gait assessment
involves visual and auditory observation of gait pat-
tern, shoe wear (e.g., marred shoe top may indicate
foot drag), foot slap, and toe dragging. Biomechani-
cal analysis systems are available that provide sophis-
ticated quantitative analysis of specific gait param-
eters. Gait training typically incorporates balance
training, lower extremity strengthening, endurance
activities, and walking under simple (smooth, level
surface) and complex conditions (time constraints,
physical load, and terrain obstacles). Labor-intensive
programs, such as training with body weight support
systems, are more widely used for stroke patients
but may be useful for patients with CIPN. Appro-
priate assistive devices (canes, walkers, and ankle-
foot orthoses) can also be helpful for improving
gait characteristics.195
Identifying muscle weakness caused specifically
by CIPN is difficult because this condition can be the
result of a variety of factors already present in many
cancer patients, including deconditioning, fatigue,
nutritional deficiency, sleep disorders, depression,
medication regimens, and pre-existing neurologic
disorders. Chemotherapeutic agents that cause CIPN
damage sensory neurons much more frequently than
motor neurons, reducing the likelihood that muscle
weakness is associated with CIPN. Of note, many
cancer patients receive corticosteroids, a drug well-
known for its muscle-wasting effects, particularly on
respiratory and proximal lower extremity muscles.
Regardless of the cause of muscle weakness,
muscle function must be assessed in these patients.
Manual muscle testing of specific muscles or muscle
groups is the most frequently used method of assess-
ing muscle strength. Hand-held dynamometers can
be used to directly measure specific muscle strength
or infer muscle strength such as grip strength. Ul-

Management of Neuropathy in Cancer
trasound is used to image skeletal muscle for archi-
tectural changes consistent with decreases in muscle
strength. Therapeutic management schemes for in-
creasing muscle strength are similar whether muscle
loss is attributable directly to CIPN or indirectly to
other cancer-related causes. Resistance training is
consistently shown to be effective in improving mus-
cle strength. For example, a 9-hour weekly training
program over 6 weeks increased muscular strength
by an average of 41% in 70 cancer patients undergo-
ing chemotherapy.196 One key to a successful exercise
program is to distinguish patients who require super-
vision in an inpatient or outpatient training program
from self-motivated patients who often derive com-
parable or greater benefit from participating in a self-
directed exercise program.
Special attention must be paid to safety for can-
cer patients engaging in exercise and physical train-
ing (Table 6). Physicians and rehabilitation thera-
pists should observe contraindications for training
to avoid injury and symptom exacerbation.196 Atten-
tion must also be paid to the use of proper footwear,
daily foot inspections, and reporting foot injury.
As with muscle weakness, cancer patients with
CIPN may have difficulties performing activities of
daily living because of sensory and motor loss. Suc-
cessful rehabilitation of these deficits requires that
they first be identified. Then strategies must be de-
veloped to either correct or compensate for the defi-
cit and maximize patient independence. Therapeutic
interventions may include musculoskeletal therapies
(strengthening, range of motion), environmental
modification, teaching energy conservation tech-
niques, and providing adaptive equipment. Practical
adaptive approaches adopted by occupational thera-
pists are very helpful:
• Modifying tasks, such as switching to loafer-style
shoes or using Velcro shoe laces
• Providing adaptive equipment, such as enlarged
handles on eating utensils, buttonhooks, Velcro
on computer keys to stimulate sensation
• Teaching increased use of vision and attention
when performing household tasks
• Increasing proprioceptive input, such as
putting weights on the patient’s arm for better
proprioception
• Educating patients on protective household
adaptation
• Strengthening
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
Supplement S-19
Table 6 Safety Notes and Tips in the
Management of Functional Deficits
Avoid or Discontinue Physical Training If: 197
• Resting diastolic blood pressure > 115 mm Hg or
resting systolic blood pressure > 200 mm Hg
• Diastolic pressure rises > 10 mm Hg above resting value
and systolic pressure > 250 mm Hg
• Heart rate to increase with increasing exertional
demand
• Signs of poor perfusion (light-headedness, confusion,
pallor, cyanosis, or cold and clammy skin) are present
or become present
• Angina or angina like symptoms are present or begin
• Body temperature > 38°C
• Hemoglobin < 8.0 g/dL
• Ongoing bleeding or fresh petechiae or bruises are
presnt; sample question: “Do you bleed often while
brushing your teeth?”
Footwear
• Avoid heels
• Insoles should not be too soft
• Grip surface on shoes
• Loafer-style, Velcro straps if having difficulty with
shoelaces
• Examine feet for signs of injury including abrasions,
blisters, etc.
Orthosis
• Watch out for skin abrasion
• Wear protective clothing underneath the orthosis
• Select good shoes with proper support, have a closed
back and toe, come up over the top of the feet and
have a slightly wider width to accommodate the
orthoses
• Remove if pain occurs, see the orthotist if pain persists
Household Environment
• Avoid or protect against thermal stress (reduce hot
water temperature, wear gloves, use potholders)
• Keep rooms well-lit, use night lights
• Remove or tack down loose rugs
• Tidy loose wires across hallways
• Use non-skid bath mats
• Employ energy conservation
Recommendations: The Task Force panel empha-
sized the importance of physicians integrating the
identification and assessment of functional deficits
into the evaluation of patients with CIPN. Sample
questions and simple skill tests that oncologists can
use to accomplish this are listed in Table 3. Overall,
panelists strongly recommend referring patients with
S-20 Supplement
NCCN Task Force Report
CIPN that interferes with functioning to a physical
or occupational therapist. Therapeutic interven-
tions, education, and practical advice provided by
these rehabilitation specialists can prove invalu-
able in helping patients to both correct CIPN-in-
duced functional deficits and to cope with the dif-
ficulties and challenges these deficits cause in their
everyday life.
Management of Autonomic Symptoms
Although CIPN primarily affects sensory nerves, au-
tonomic impairment is sometimes seen after the use
of antineoplastic agents such as vincristine, cisplatin,
carboplatin, paclitaxel, and bortezomib. For exam-
ple, in a phase II study of bortezomib in patients with
metastatic neuroendocrine tumors, 6 of 10 patients
with moderate sensory neuropathy also experienced
grade 2 to 3 dizziness, orthostasis, syncope, ileus, or
abdominal cramping.198 As discussed, it is difficult
to specifically attribute neuropathic symptoms to a
single drug because other cancer-related factors may
also be involved. Autonomic neuropathy induced
by chemotherapy has not been well documented
or studied.
Recommendations: Autonomic dysfunction can
manifest with a wide variety of symptoms. The more
common symptoms seen in patients undergoing che-
motherapy are dizziness or lightheadedness related to
orthostatic hypotension, bloating, urinary retention,
constipation or diarrhea, and impotence. The EFNS
developed guidelines on the management of ortho-
static hypotension.199 Advice for mild cases include
getting up slowly (supine position to sitting, sitting
to standing) as well as maintaining adequate salt in-
take and hydration. Abdominal binders or graded
compression stockings decrease venous pooling and
may be helpful for some patients. For more severe
cases, midodrine, fludrocortisone, or their combina-
tion may be prescribed.
Urinary retention can often be related to un-
derlying medical disorders such as benign prostatic
hyperplasia or an obstructive tumor and worsened by
treatment with medications that have anticholiner-
gic properties such as TCAs and opioids. In such cas-
es, discontinuation of the offending agent may result
in resolution of symptoms. The addition of alpha-
blocking medications may be indicated in patients
with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Chronic urinary
retention from neurogenic bladder can be effectively
managed using hygienic, intermittent self-cathe-
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
terization (reviewed by Selius and Subedi200). Low-
friction, hydrophilic-coated catheters are preferable
over regular catheters for the prevention of urinary
tract infection. Use of urethral indwelling catheters
is not recommended due to possible complications
such as sepsis, stones, prostatitis, urethral erosions,
and development of squamous cell carcinoma.
Constipation can also be related to underlying
medical disorders, including obstruction by tumor,
electrolyte abnormalities, and endocrine dysfunc-
tion such as hypothyroidism, and worsened by treat-
ment with medications, particularly opioids. A well
thought-out bowel program may include adequate
water and fiber intake, stool softeners, and, when
needed, cathartic agents. The timing of cathartic
agents should be deliberate, with the goal of produc-
ing bowel movement at a specific time of day. For
instance, the use of agents before sleep coupled with
the ingestion of breakfast and warm liquid may help
reliably produce a morning bowel movement in some
patients. Methylnaltrexone is an effective medica-
tion for opioid-induced constipation,201,202 but its ef-
ficacy is unclear when constipation is related to au-
tonomic neuropathy from chemotherapy.
Conclusions
With the continued use of neurotoxic drugs, emer-
gence of newer neuropathy-inducing antineoplastic
agents, and the adoption of dose-dense regimens, the
problem of CIPN is more relevant than ever in on-
cology. In reviewing the current literature, panelists
noted a paucity of rigorous studies on the assessment,
prevention, and management of cancer treatment–
related neuropathy. More well-designed, sufficiently
powered trials specifically on patients with CIPN are
necessary to validate evaluation tools, explore differ-
ent combinations and sequence of pain medications,
and test the efficacy and safety of therapeutic meth-
ods and preventative supplements.
In the interim, improving education and aware-
ness within both the medical and general commu-
nity will be an essential primer in efforts to over-
come neuropathy. Physician and patient education
are required to address the issues of underdiagnosis,
underassessment, and failure of intervention. Patient
participation in clinical trials is strongly encouraged.
While the community awaits more study data,
existing measures can aid patients with CIPN. A

Management of Neuropathy in Cancer
number of medications are available to mitigate neu-
ropathic pain, as are various interventional measures
and devices to improve or compensate for functional
deficits. For patients for whom pain medications are
ineffective, noninvasive techniques such as TENS or
acupuncture may be considered.
References
1. Hausheer FH, Schilsky RL, Bain S, et al. Diagnosis, management,
and evaluation of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.
Semin Oncol 2006;33:15–49.
2. Langkjer ST, Ejlertsen B, Mouridsen H, et al. Vinorelbine as first-
line or second-line therapy for advanced breast cancer: a phase
I-II trial by the Danish Breast Cancer Co-operative Group. Acta
Oncol 2008;47:735–739.
3. Pal PK. Clinical and electrophysiological studies in vincristine
induced neuropathy. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol
1999;39:323–330.
4. Park SB, Krishnan AV, Lin CS, et al. Mechanisms underlying
chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity and the potential for
neuroprotective strategies. Curr Med Chem 2008;15:3081–3094.
5. Siegal T, Haim N. Cisplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy:
Frequent off-therapy deterioration, demyelinating syndromes, and
muscle cramps. Cancer 1990;66:1117–1123.
6. Cassidy J, Misset JL. Oxaliplatin-related side effects: characteristics
and management. Semin Oncol 2002;29:11–20.
7. Gamelin E, Gamelin L, Bossi L, Quasthoff S. Clinical aspects and
molecular basis of oxaliplatin neurotoxicity: current management
and development of preventive measures. Semin Oncol
2002;29:21–33.
8. Platinol label information. Available at: http://dailymed.nlm.nih.
gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?id=4915#nlm34084-4. Accessed: July
1, 2009.
9. Carboplatin label information. Available at: http://dailymed.nlm.
nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?id=4325#nlm34084-4. Accessed:
July 1, 2009.
10. Ozols RF, Bundy BN, Greer BE, et al. Phase III trial of carboplatin
and paclitaxel compared with cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients
with optimally resected stage III ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic
Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3194–3200.
11. Rosell R, Gatzemeier U, Betticher DC, et al. Phase III randomised
trial comparing paclitaxel/carboplatin with paclitaxel/cisplatin in
patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a cooperative
multinational trial. Ann Oncol 2002;13:1539–1549.
12. Lilenbaum R, Axelrod R, Thomas S, et al. Randomized phase
II trial of erlotinib or standard chemotherapy in patients with
advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and a performance status of
2. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:863–869.
13. Parmar MK, Ledermann JA, Colombo N, et al. Paclitaxel plus
platinum-based chemotherapy versus conventional platinum-
based chemotherapy in women with relapsed ovarian cancer: the
ICON4/AGO-OVAR-2.2 trial. Lancet 2003;361:2099–2106.
14. Pfisterer J, Vergote I, Du Bois A, Eisenhauer E. Combination
therapy with gemcitabine and carboplatin in recurrent ovarian
cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2005;15(Suppl 1):36–41.
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
Supplement S-21
15. Park SB, Goldstein D, Lin CS, et al. Acute abnormalities of
sensory nerve function associated with oxaliplatin-induced
neurotoxicity. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1243–1249.
16. Becouarn Y, Ychou M, Ducreux M, et al. Phase II trial of
oxaliplatin as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal
cancer patients. Digestive Group of French Federation of Cancer
Centers. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2739–2744.
17. de Gramont A, Figer A, Seymour M, et al. Leucovorin and
fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin as first-line treatment in
advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2938–2947.
18. Giacchetti S, Perpoint B, Zidani R, et al. Phase III multicenter
randomized trial of oxaliplatin added to chronomodulated
fluorouracil-leucovorin as first-line treatment of metastatic
colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:136–147.
19. Maindrault-Goebel F, de Gramont A, Louvet C, et al. High-dose
intensity oxaliplatin added to the simplified bimonthly leucovorin
and 5-fluorouracil regimen as second-line therapy for metastatic
colorectal cancer (FOLFOX 7). Eur J Cancer 2001;37:1000–1005.
20. Maindrault-Goebel F, Louvet C, Andre T, et al. Oxaliplatin
added to the simplified bimonthly leucovorin and 5-fluorouracil
regimen as second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer
(FOLFOX6). GERCOR. Eur J Cancer 1999;35:1338–1342.
21. Windebank AJ, Grisold W. Chemotherapy-induced neuropathy. J
Peripher Nerv Syst 2008;13:27–46.
22. Pace A, Bove L, Nistico C, et al. Vinorelbine neurotoxicity:
clinical and neurophysiological findings in 23 patients. J Neurol
Neurosurg Psychiatry 1996;61:409–411.
23. Postma TJ, Benard BA, Huijgens PC, et al. Long-term effects
of vincristine on the peripheral nervous system. J Neurooncol
1993;15:23–27.
24. Verstappen CC, Koeppen S, Heimans JJ, et al. Dose-related
vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy with unexpected off-
therapy worsening. Neurology 2005;64:1076–1077.
25. Jones SE, Erban J, Overmoyer B, et al. Randomized phase III study
of docetaxel compared with paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer.
J Clin Oncol 2005;23:5542–5551.
26. Lee JJ, Swain SM. Peripheral neuropathy induced by microtubule-
stabilizing agents. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:1633–1642.
27. Paridaens R, Biganzoli L, Bruning P, et al. Paclitaxel versus
doxorubicin as first-line single-agent chemotherapy for metastatic
breast cancer: a European Organization for Research and
Treatment of Cancer randomized study with cross-over. J Clin
Oncol 2000;18:724–733.
28. Seidman AD, Berry D, Cirrincione C, et al. Randomized phase
III trial of weekly compared with every-3-weeks paclitaxel
for metastatic breast cancer, with trastuzumab for all HER-2
overexpressors and random assignment to trastuzumab or not in
HER-2 nonoverexpressors: final results of Cancer and Leukemia
Group B protocol 9840. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1642–1649.
29. Smith RE, Brown AM, Mamounas EP, et al. Randomized trial of
3-hour versus 24-hour infusion of high-dose paclitaxel in patients
with metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer: National
Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project protocol B-26. J Clin
Oncol 1999;17:3403–3411.
30. Winer EP, Berry DA, Woolf S, et al. Failure of higher-dose
paclitaxel to improve outcome in patients with metastatic breast
cancer: Cancer and Leukemia Group B trial 9342. J Clin Oncol
2004;22:2061–2068.
31. Gradishar WJ, Tjulandin S, Davidson N, et al. Phase III trial
of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel compared with
S-22 Supplement
NCCN Task Force Report
polyethylated castor oil-based paclitaxel in women with breast
cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7794–7803.
32. Perez EA, Vogel CL, Irwin DH, et al. Multicenter phase II trial of
weekly paclitaxel in women with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin
Oncol 2001;19:4216–4223.
33. Fountzilas G, Tsavdaridis D, Kalogera-Fountzila A, et al. Weekly
paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy and trastuzumab in patients
with advanced breast cancer. A Hellenic Cooperative Oncology
Group phase II study. Ann Oncol 2001;12:1545–1551.
34. Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S, et al. Weekly paclitaxel in the
adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1663–
1671.
35. Rizvi NA, Riely GJ, Azzoli CG, et al. Phase I/II trial of weekly
intravenous 130-nm albumin-bound paclitaxel as initial
chemotherapy in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung
cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:639–643.
36. Burstein HJ, Manola J, Younger J, et al. Docetaxel administered
on a weekly basis for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol
2000;18:1212–1219.
37. Hilkens PH, Verweij J, Stoter G, et al. Peripheral neurotoxicity
induced by docetaxel. Neurology 1996;46:104–108.
38. New PZ, Jackson CE, Rinaldi D, et al. Peripheral neuropathy
secondary to docetaxel (Taxotere). Neurology 1996;46:108–111.
39. Badros A, Goloubeva O, Dalal JS, et al. Neurotoxicity of
bortezomib therapy in multiple myeloma: a single-center
experience and review of the literature. Cancer 2007;110:1042–
1049.
40. Jagannath S, Barlogie B, Berenson J, et al. A phase 2 study of
two doses of bortezomib in relapsed or refractory myeloma. Br J
Haematol 2004;127:165–172.
41. Jagannath S, Durie BG, Wolf J, et al. Bortezomib therapy alone
and in combination with dexamethasone for previously untreated
symptomatic multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 2005;129:776–
783.
42. Mateos MV, Hernandez JM, Hernandez MT, et al. Bortezomib
plus melphalan and prednisone in elderly untreated patients with
multiple myeloma: results of a multicenter phase 1/2 study. Blood
2006;108:2165–2172.
43. Richardson PG, Barlogie B, Berenson J, et al. A phase 2 study
of bortezomib in relapsed, refractory myeloma. N Engl J Med
2003;348:2609–2617.
44. Richardson PG, Briemberg H, Jagannath S, et al. Frequency,
characteristics, and reversibility of peripheral neuropathy during
treatment of advanced multiple myeloma with bortezomib. J Clin
Oncol 2006;24:3113–3120.
45. Perez EA, Lerzo G, Pivot X, et al. Efficacy and safety of ixabepilone
(BMS-247550) in a phase II study of patients with advanced breast
cancer resistant to an anthracycline, a taxane, and capecitabine. J
Clin Oncol 2007;25:3407–3414.
46. Thomas ES, Gomez HL, Li RK, et al. Ixabepilone plus capecitabine
for metastatic breast cancer progressing after anthracycline and
taxane treatment. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:5210–5217.
47. Offidani M, Corvatta L, Marconi M, et al. Common and rare
side-effects of low-dose thalidomide in multiple myeloma: focus
on the dose-minimizing peripheral neuropathy. Eur J Haematol
2004;72:403–409.
48. Plasmati R, Pastorelli F, Cavo M, et al. Neuropathy in multiple
myeloma treated with thalidomide: a prospective study. Neurology
2007;69:573–581.
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
49. Tosi P, Zamagni E, Cellini C, et al. Neurological toxicity of
long-term (>1 yr) thalidomide therapy in patients with multiple
myeloma. Eur J Haematol 2005;74:212–216.
50. von Lilienfeld-Toal M, Hahn-Ast C, Furkert K, et al. A
systematic review of phase II trials of thalidomide/dexamethasone
combination therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory
multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol 2008;81:247–252.
51. Mileshkin L, Stark R, Day B, et al. Development of neuropathy
in patients with myeloma treated with thalidomide: patterns of
occurrence and the role of electrophysiologic monitoring. J Clin
Oncol 2006;24:4507–4514.
52. Molloy FM, Floeter MK, Syed NA, et al. Thalidomide neuropathy
in patients treated for metastatic prostate cancer. Muscle Nerve
2001;24:1050–1057.
53. Richardson P, Schlossman R, Jagannath S, et al. Thalidomide
for patients with relapsed multiple myeloma after high-dose
chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation: results of an open-
label multicenter phase 2 study of efficacy, toxicity, and biological
activity. Mayo Clin Proc 2004;79:875–882.
54. Dimopoulos M, Spencer A, Attal M, et al. Lenalidomide plus
dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. N
Engl J Med 2007;357:2123–2132.
55. Richardson PG, Blood E, Mitsiades CS, et al. A randomized phase
2 study of lenalidomide therapy for patients with relapsed or
relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Blood 2006;108:3458–
3464.
56. Stubblefield MD, Slovin S, MacGregor-Cortelli B, et al.
An electrodiagnostic evaluation of the effect of pre-existing
peripheral nervous system disorders in patients treated with the
novel proteasome inhibitor bortezomib. Clin Oncol (R Coll
Radiol) 2006;18:410–418.
57. Basch E, Iasonos A, McDonough T, et al. Patient versus
clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute
Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: results of a
questionnaire-based study. Lancet Oncol 2006;7:903–909.
58. Shimozuma K, Ohashi Y, Takeuchi A, et al. Feasibility and
validity of the Patient Neurotoxicity Questionnaire during taxane
chemotherapy in a phase III randomized trial in patients with
breast cancer: N-SAS BC 02. Support Care Cancer 2009; in press.
59. Stephens RJ, Hopwood P, Girling DJ, Machin D. Randomized
trials with quality of life endpoints: are doctors’ ratings of patients’
physical symptoms interchangeable with patients’ self-ratings?
Qual Life Res 1997;6:225–236.
60. Louis TA, Lavori PW, Bailar JC III, Polansky M. Crossover
and self-controlled designs in clinical research. N Engl J Med
1984;310:24–31.
61. Sindrup SH, Andersen G, Madsen C, et al. Tramadol relieves pain
and allodynia in polyneuropathy: a randomised, double-blind,
controlled trial. Pain 1999;83:85–90.
62. Loprinzi CL, Kugler JW, Sloan JA, et al. Lack of effect of coumarin
in women with lymphedema after treatment for breast cancer. N
Engl J Med 1999;340:346–350.
63. Loprinzi CL, Sloan JA, Perez EA, et al. Phase III evaluation of
fluoxetine for treatment of hot flashes. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:1578–
1583.
64. Pockaj BA, Gallagher JG, Loprinzi CL, et al. Phase III double-
blind, randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial of black
cohosh in the management of hot flashes: NCCTG trial N01CC1.
J Clin Oncol 2006;24:2836–2841.

Management of Neuropathy in Cancer
65. Cavaletti G, Fabbrica D, Minoia C, et al. Carboplatin toxic
effects on the peripheral nervous system of the rat. Ann Oncol
1998;9:443–447.
66. McDonald ES, Windebank AJ. Cisplatin-induced apoptosis
of DRG neurons involves bax redistribution and cytochrome c
release but not fas receptor signaling. Neurobiol Dis 2002;9:220–
233.
67. Tulub AA, Stefanov VE. Cisplatin stops tubulin assembly into
microtubules. A new insight into the mechanism of antitumor
activity of platinum complexes. Int J Biol Macromol 2001;28:191–
198.
68. Benoit E, Brienza S, Dubois JM. Oxaliplatin, an anticancer
agent that affects both Na+ and K+ channels in frog peripheral
myelinated axons. Gen Physiol Biophys 2006;25:263–276.
69. Grolleau F, Gamelin L, Boisdron-Celle M, et al. A possible
explanation for a neurotoxic effect of the anticancer agent
oxaliplatin on neuronal voltage-gated sodium channels. J
Neurophysiol 2001;85:2293–2297.
70. Cavaletti G, Tredici G, Braga M, Tazzari S. Experimental
peripheral neuropathy induced in adult rats by repeated
intraperitoneal administration of taxol. Exp Neurol 1995;133:64–
72.
71. Macfarlane BV, Wright A, Benson HA. Reversible blockade of
retrograde axonal transport in the rat sciatic nerve by vincristine.
J Pharm Pharmacol 1997;49:97–101.
72. Sahenk Z, Brady ST, Mendell JR. Studies on the pathogenesis of
vincristine-induced neuropathy. Muscle Nerve 1987;10:80–84.
73. Topp KS, Tanner KD, Levine JD. Damage to the cytoskeleton
of large diameter sensory neurons and myelinated axons in
vincristine-induced painful peripheral neuropathy in the rat. J
Comp Neurol 2000;424:563–576.
74. Weimer LH, Podwall D. Medication-induced exacerbation
of neuropathy in Charcot Marie Tooth disease. J Neurol Sci
2006;242:47–54.
75. Fabrizi GM, Cavallaro T, Angiari C, et al. Charcot-Marie-
Tooth disease type 2E, a disorder of the cytoskeleton. Brain
2007;130:394–403.
76. Zhao C, Takita J, Tanaka Y, et al. Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease
type 2A caused by mutation in a microtubule motor KIF1Bbeta.
Cell 2001;105:587–597.
77. Chaudhry V, Cornblath DR, Corse A, et al. Thalidomide-induced
neuropathy. Neurology 2002;59:1872–1875.
78. Cavaletti G, Gilardini A, Canta A, et al. Bortezomib-induced
peripheral neurotoxicity: a neurophysiological and pathological
study in the rat. Exp Neurol 2007;204:317–325.
79. Csizmadia V, Raczynski A, Csizmadia E, et al. Effect of an
experimental proteasome inhibitor on the cytoskeleton, cytosolic
protein turnover, and induction in the neuronal cells in vitro.
Neurotoxicology 2008;29:232–243.
80. Poruchynsky MS, Sackett DL, Robey RW, et al. Proteasome
inhibitors increase tubulin polymerization and stabilization
in tissue culture cells: a possible mechanism contributing to
peripheral neuropathy and cellular toxicity following proteasome
inhibition. Cell Cycle 2008;7:940–949.
81. Darnell RB, Posner JB. Paraneoplastic syndromes involving the
nervous system. N Engl J Med 2003;349:1543–1554.
82. Berger T, Malayeri R, Doppelbauer A, et al. Neurological
monitoring of neurotoxicity induced by paclitaxel/cisplatin
chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer 1997;33:1393–1399.
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
Supplement S-23
83. du Bois A, Schlaich M, Luck HJ, et al. Evaluation of neurotoxicity
induced by paclitaxel second-line chemotherapy. Support Care
Cancer 1999;7:354–361.
84. Forsyth PA, Balmaceda C, Peterson K, et al. Prospective study
of paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy with quantitative
sensory testing. J Neurooncol 1997;35:47–53.
85. Chaudhry V, Rowinsky EK, Sartorius SE, et al. Peripheral
neuropathy from taxol and cisplatin combination chemotherapy:
clinical and electrophysiological studies. Ann Neurol
1994;35:304–311.
86. Ajani JA, Welch SR, Raber MN, et al. Comprehensive criteria
for assessing therapy-induced toxicity. Cancer Invest 1990;8:147–
159.
87. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting
results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981;47:207–214.
88. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response
criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin
Oncol 1982;5:649–655.
89. National Cancer Institute. National Cancer Institute-Common
Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE), version
3.0. Available at: http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/
electronic_applications/docs/ctcaev3.pdf. Accessed July 8, 2009.
90. Postma TJ, Heimans JJ, Muller MJ, et al. Pitfalls in grading
severity of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Ann
Oncol 1998;9:739–744.
91. Postma TJ, Heimans JJ. Grading of chemotherapy-induced
peripheral neuropathy. Ann Oncol 2000;11:509–513.
92. Cavaletti G, Jann S, Pace A, et al. Multi-center assessment of
the Total Neuropathy Score for chemotherapy-induced peripheral
neurotoxicity. J Peripher Nerv Syst 2006;11:135–141.
93. Cavaletti G, Frigeni B, Lanzani F, et al. The Total Neuropathy
Score as an assessment tool for grading the course of chemotherapy-
induced peripheral neurotoxicity: comparison with the National
Cancer Institute-Common Toxicity Scale. J Peripher Nerv Syst
2007;12:210–215.
94. Calhoun EA, Welshman EE, Chang CH, et al. Psychometric
evaluation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/
Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity (Fact/GOG-Ntx)
questionnaire for patients receiving systemic chemotherapy. Int J
Gynecol Cancer 2003;13:741–748.
95. Cella D, Peterman A, Hudgens S, et al. Measuring the side effects
of taxane therapy in oncology: the functional assesment of cancer
therapy-taxane (FACT-taxane). Cancer 2003;98:822–831.
96. Cleeland CS, Ryan KM. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief
Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1994;23:129–138.
97. Tittle MB, McMillan SC, Hagan S. Validating the brief pain
inventory for use with surgical patients with cancer. Oncol Nurs
Forum 2003;30:325–330.
98. Galer BS, Jensen MP. Development and preliminary validation of
a pain measure specific to neuropathic pain: the Neuropathic Pain
Scale. Neurology 1997;48:332–338.
99. Jensen MP, Friedman M, Bonzo D, Richards P. The validity of the
neuropathic pain scale for assessing diabetic neuropathic pain in a
clinical trial. Clin J Pain 2006;22:97–103.
100. Bennett M. The LANSS Pain Scale: the Leeds Assessment of
Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs. Pain 2001;92:147–157.
101. Potter J, Higginson IJ, Scadding JW, Quigley C. Identifying
neuropathic pain in patients with head and neck cancer: use of
the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs Scale.
J R Soc Med 2003;96:379–383.
S-24 Supplement
NCCN Task Force Report
102. Argyriou AA, Chroni E, Koutras A, et al. Vitamin E for
prophylaxis against chemotherapy-induced neuropathy: a
randomized controlled trial. Neurology 2005;64:26–31.
103. Argyriou AA, Chroni E, Koutras A, et al. A randomized
controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of vitamin
E supplementation for protection against cisplatin-induced
peripheral neuropathy: final results. Support Care Cancer
2006;14:1134–1140.
104. Pace A, Savarese A, Picardo M, et al. Neuroprotective effect
of vitamin E supplementation in patients treated with cisplatin
chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:927–931.
105. Pace A, Carpano S, Galie E, et al. Vitamin E in the neuroprotection
of cisplatin induced peripheral neurotoxicity and ototoxicity
[abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(Suppl 18S):Abstract 9114.
106. Nikcevich DA, Grothey A, Sloan JA, et al. Effect of intravenous
calcium and magnesium (IV CaMg) on oxaliplatin-induced
sensory neurotoxicity (sNT) in adjuvant colon cancer: results
of the phase III placebo-controlled, double-blind NCCTG trial
N04C7 [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2008;26(Suppl 18S):Abstract
4009.
107. Wang WS, Lin JK, Lin TC, et al. Oral glutamine is effective for
preventing oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy in colorectal cancer
patients. Oncologist 2007;12:312–319.
108. Cascinu S, Catalano V, Cordella L, et al. Neuroprotective effect
of reduced glutathione on oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in
advanced colorectal cancer: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-
controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3478–3483.
109. Cascinu S, Cordella L, Del Ferro E, et al. Neuroprotective effect
of reduced glutathione on cisplatin-based chemotherapy in
advanced gastric cancer: a randomized double-blind placebo-
controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:26–32.
110. Smyth JF, Bowman A, Perren T, et al. Glutathione reduces the
toxicity and improves quality of life of women diagnosed with
ovarian cancer treated with cisplatin: results of a double-blind,
randomised trial. Ann Oncol 1997;8:569–573.
111. Lin PC, Lee MY, Wang WS, et al. N-acetylcysteine has
neuroprotective effects against oxaliplatin-based adjuvant
chemotherapy in colon cancer patients: preliminary data. Support
Care Cancer 2006;14:484–487.
112. Argyriou AA, Chroni E, Polychronopoulos P, et al. Efficacy of
oxcarbazepine for prophylaxis against cumulative oxaliplatin-
induced neuropathy. Neurology 2006;67:2253–2255.
113. Cassidy J, Bjarnason G, Hickish T. Randomized double blind
placebo controlled phase III study assessing the efficacy of
xaliproden in reducing the cumulative peripheral sensory
neuropathy induced by the oxaliplatin and 5-FU/LV combination
(FOLFOX4) in first line treatment of patients with metastatic
colorectal cancer [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(Suppl
18S):Abstract 229.
114. Leong SS, Tan EH, Fong KW, et al. Randomized double-blind trial
of combined modality treatment with or without amifostine in
unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol
2003;21:1767–1774.
115. Hilpert F, Stahle A, Tome O, et al. Neuroprotection with
amifostine in the first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer
with carboplatin/paclitaxel-based chemotherapy--a double-
blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase II study from the
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynakologische Onkologoie (AGO)
Ovarian Cancer Study Group. Support Care Cancer 2005;13:797–
805.
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
116. Cassidy J, Paul J, Soukop M, et al. Clinical trials of nimodipine as
a potential neuroprotector in ovarian cancer patients treated with
cisplatin. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1998;41:161–166.
117. van der Hoop RG, Vecht CJ, van der Burg ME, et al. Prevention of
cisplatin neurotoxicity with an ACTH(4-9) analogue in patients
with ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 1990;322:89–94.
118. Koeppen S, Verstappen CC, Korte R, et al. Lack of neuroprotection
by an ACTH (4-9) analogue. A randomized trial in patients
treated with vincristine for Hodgkin’s or non-Hodgkin’s
lymphoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2004;130:153–160.
119. Roberts JA, Jenison EL, Kim K, et al. A randomized, multicenter,
double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study of ORG
2766 in the prevention or delay of cisplatin-induced neuropathies
in women with ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 1997;67:172–177.
120. Davis ID, Kiers L, MacGregor L, et al. A randomized, double-
blinded, placebo-controlled phase II trial of recombinant human
leukemia inhibitory factor (rhuLIF, emfilermin, AM424) to
prevent chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Clin
Cancer Res 2005;11:1890–1898.
121. Wolf S, Barton D, Kottschade L, et al. Chemotherapy-induced
peripheral neuropathy: prevention and treatment strategies. Eur J
Cancer 2008;44:1507–1515.
122. Leonetti C, Biroccio A, Gabellini C, et al. Alpha-tocopherol
protects against cisplatin-induced toxicity without interfering
with antitumor efficacy. Int J Cancer 2003;104:243–250.
123. Pathak AK, Bhutani M, Guleria R, et al. Chemotherapy alone
vs. chemotherapy plus high dose multiple antioxidants in patients
with advanced non small cell lung cancer. J Am Coll Nutr
2005;24:16–21.
124. Armstrong CM, Cota G. Calcium block of Na+ channels and its
effect on closing rate. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999;96:4154–
4157.
125. Hochster HS, Grothey A, Childs BH. Use of calcium and
magnesium salts to reduce oxaliplatin-related neurotoxicity. J
Clin Oncol 2007;25:4028–4029.
126. Hochster H, Grothey A, Shpilsky A, Childs BH. Effect of
intravenous calcium and magnesium versus placebo on response
to FOLFOX4 + bevacizumab in the CONcePT trial [abstract].
Presented at ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium;
January 25–27, 2009; Orlando, Florida. Abstract 280.
127. Gamelin L, Boisdron-Celle M, Morel A, et al. Oxaliplatin-related
neurotoxicity: interest of calcium-magnesium infusion and no
impact on its efficacy. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1188–1189; author
reply 1189–1190.
128. Albers J, Chaudhry V, Cavaletti G, Donehower R. Interventions
for preventing neuropathy caused by cisplatin and related
compounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007:CD005228.
129. Hughes RA, Swan AV, Raphael JC, et al. Immunotherapy
for Guillain-Barre syndrome: a systematic review. Brain
2007;130:2245–2257.
130. de Beukelaar JW, Sillevis Smitt PA. Managing paraneoplastic
neurological disorders. Oncologist 2006;11:292–305.
131. Comi G, Roveri L, Swan A, et al. A randomised controlled trial
of intravenous immunoglobulin in IgM paraprotein associated
demyelinating neuropathy. J Neurol 2002;249:1370–1377.
132. Dalakas MC, Quarles RH, Farrer RG, et al. A controlled study of
intravenous immunoglobulin in demyelinating neuropathy with
IgM gammopathy. Ann Neurol 1996;40:792–795.
133. Dalakas MC, Rakocevic G, Salajegheh M, et al. Placebo-
controlled trial of rituximab in IgM anti-myelin-associated

Management of Neuropathy in Cancer
glycoprotein antibody demyelinating neuropathy. Ann Neurol
2009;65:286–293.
134. Hammack JE, Michalak JC, Loprinzi CL, et al. Phase III
evaluation of nortriptyline for alleviation of symptoms of cis-
platinum-induced peripheral neuropathy. Pain 2002;98:195–203.
135. Kautio AL, Haanpaa M, Saarto T, Kalso E. Amitriptyline in the
treatment of chemotherapy-induced neuropathic symptoms. J
Pain Symptom Manage 2008;35:31–39.
136. Rao RD, Flynn PJ, Sloan JA, et al. Efficacy of lamotrigine in the
management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy:
a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial,
N01C3. Cancer 2008;112:2802–2808.
137. Rao RD, Michalak JC, Sloan JA, et al. Efficacy of gabapentin in the
management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a
phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover
trial (N00C3). Cancer 2007;110:2110–2118.
138. Barton D, Wos E, Qin R, et al. A randomized controlled trial
evaluating a topical treatment for chemotherapy-induced
neuropathy: NCCTG trial N06CA [abstract]. J Clin Oncol
2009;27(Suppl 15S):Abstract 9531.
139. Durand JP, Deplanque G, Gorent J, et al. Efficacy of venlafaxine
for the prevention and relief of acute neurotoxicity of
oxaliplatin: results of EFFOX, a randomized, double-blinded,
placebo-controlled prospective study [abstract]. J Clin Oncol
2009;27(Suppl 15S):Abstract 9533.
140. Backonja M, Beydoun A, Edwards KR, et al. Gabapentin for
the symptomatic treatment of painful neuropathy in patients
with diabetes mellitus: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA
1998;280:1831–1836.
141. Gilron I, Bailey JM, Tu D, et al. Morphine, gabapentin, or their
combination for neuropathic pain. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1324–
1334.
142. Hahn K, Arendt G, Braun JS, et al. A placebo-controlled trial
of gabapentin for painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathies. J
Neurol 2004;251:1260–1266.
143. Ho TW, Backonja M, Ma J, et al. Efficient assessment of
neuropathic pain drugs in patients with small fiber sensory
neuropathies. Pain 2009;141:19–24.
144. Simpson DA. Gabapentin and venlafaxine for the treatment of
painful diabetic neuropathy. J Clin Neuromuscul Dis 2001;3:53–
62.
145. Arezzo JC, Rosenstock J, Lamoreaux L, Pauer L. Efficacy and safety
of pregabalin 600 mg/d for treating painful diabetic peripheral
neuropathy: a double-blind placebo-controlled trial. BMC Neurol
2008;8:33.
146. Freynhagen R, Strojek K, Griesing T, et al. Efficacy of pregabalin
in neuropathic pain evaluated in a 12-week, randomised, double-
blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled trial of flexible- and fixed-
dose regimens. Pain 2005;115:254–263.
147. Lesser H, Sharma U, LaMoreaux L, Poole RM. Pregabalin relieves
symptoms of painful diabetic neuropathy: a randomized controlled
trial. Neurology 2004;63:2104–2110.
148. Richter RW, Portenoy R, Sharma U, et al. Relief of painful
diabetic peripheral neuropathy with pregabalin: a randomized,
placebo-controlled trial. J Pain 2005;6:253–260.
149. Rosenstock J, Tuchman M, LaMoreaux L, Sharma U. Pregabalin
for the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a
double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Pain 2004;110:628–638.
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
Supplement S-25
150. Tolle T, Freynhagen R, Versavel M, et al. Pregabalin for relief
of neuropathic pain associated with diabetic neuropathy: a
randomized, double-blind study. Eur J Pain 2008;12:203–213.
151. Meier T, Wasner G, Faust M, et al. Efficacy of lidocaine patch 5%
in the treatment of focal peripheral neuropathic pain syndromes:
a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Pain
2003;106:151–158.
152. Cheville AL, Sloan JA, Northfelt DW, et al. Use of a lidocaine
patch in the management of postsurgical neuropathic pain in
patients with cancer: a phase III double-blind crossover study
(N01CB). Support Care Cancer 2009;17:451–460.
153. Quilici S, Chancellor J, Lothgren M, et al. Meta-analysis of
duloxetine vs. pregabalin and gabapentin in the treatment of
diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. BMC Neurol 2009;9:6.
154. Raskin J, Pritchett YL, Wang F, et al. A double-blind, randomized
multicenter trial comparing duloxetine with placebo in the
management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. Pain Med
2005;6:346–356.
155. Wernicke JF, Pritchett YL, D’Souza DN, et al. A randomized
controlled trial of duloxetine in diabetic peripheral neuropathic
pain. Neurology 2006;67:1411–1420.
156. Max MB, Lynch SA, Muir J, et al. Effects of desipramine,
amitriptyline, and fluoxetine on pain in diabetic neuropathy. N
Engl J Med 1992;326:1250–1256.
157. Freeman R, Raskin P, Hewitt DJ, et al. Randomized study of
tramadol/acetaminophen versus placebo in painful diabetic
peripheral neuropathy. Curr Med Res Opin 2007;23:147–161.
158. Harati Y, Gooch C, Swenson M, et al. Double-blind randomized
trial of tramadol for the treatment of the pain of diabetic
neuropathy. Neurology 1998;50:1842–1846.
159. Gimbel JS, Richards P, Portenoy RK. Controlled-release
oxycodone for pain in diabetic neuropathy: a randomized
controlled trial. Neurology 2003;60:927–934.
160. Hanna M, O’Brien C, Wilson MC. Prolonged-release oxycodone
enhances the effects of existing gabapentin therapy in painful
diabetic neuropathy patients. Eur J Pain 2008;12:804–813.
161. Watson CP, Moulin D, Watt-Watson J, et al. Controlled-release
oxycodone relieves neuropathic pain: a randomized controlled
trial in painful diabetic neuropathy. Pain 2003;105:71–78.
162. Melzack R, Wall PD. Pain mechanisms: a new theory. Science
1965;150:971–979.
163. Cruccu G, Aziz TZ, Garcia-Larrea L, et al. EFNS guidelines on
neurostimulation therapy for neuropathic pain. Eur J Neurol
2007;14:952–970.
164. Cata JP, Cordella JV, Burton AW, et al. Spinal cord stimulation
relieves chemotherapy-induced pain: a clinical case report. J Pain
Symptom Manage 2004;27:72–78.
165. Bruel BM, Burton A, Are M, et al. Dorsal column stimulation for
severe chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy [abstract].
Presented at the NANS 2006 Annual Meeting; December 8,
2006.
166. Daousi C, Benbow SJ, MacFarlane IA. Electrical spinal cord
stimulation in the long-term treatment of chronic painful diabetic
neuropathy. Diabet Med 2005;22:393–398.
167. Kumar K, Toth C, Nath RK. Spinal cord stimulation for chronic
pain in peripheral neuropathy. Surg Neurol 1996;46:363–369.
168. Tesfaye S, Watt J, Benbow SJ, et al. Electrical spinal-cord
stimulation for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Lancet
1996;348:1698–1701.
S-26 Supplement
NCCN Task Force Report
169. de Vos CC, Rajan V, Steenbergen W, et al. Effect and safety of
spinal cord stimulation for treatment of chronic pain caused by
diabetic neuropathy. J Diabetes Complications 2009;23:40–45.
170. Roebling R, Huch K, Kassubek J, et al. Cervical spinal MRI in
a patient with a vagus nerve stimulator (VNS). Epilepsy Res
2009;84:273–275.
171. Shah RV, Smith HK, Chung J, et al. Cervical spinal cord neoplasm
in a patient with an implanted cervical spinal cord stimulator: the
controversial role of magnetic resonance imaging. Pain Physician
2004;7:273–278.
172. De Andres J, Valia JC, Cerda-Olmedo G, et al. Magnetic
resonance imaging in patients with spinal neurostimulation
systems. Anesthesiology 2007;106:779–786.
173. Reichstein L, Labrenz S, Ziegler D, Martin S. Effective treatment
of symptomatic diabetic polyneuropathy by high-frequency
external muscle stimulation. Diabetologia 2005;48:824–828.
174. Leonard DR, Farooqi MH, Myers S. Restoration of sensation,
reduced pain, and improved balance in subjects with diabetic
peripheral neuropathy: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-
controlled study with monochromatic near-infrared treatment.
Diabetes Care 2004;27:168–172.
175. Prendergast JJ, Miranda G, Sanchez M. Improvement of sensory
impairment in patients with peripheral neuropathy. Endocr Pract
2004;10:24–30.
176. Lavery LA, Murdoch DP, Williams J, Lavery DC. Does
anodyne light therapy improve peripheral neuropathy in
diabetes? A double-blind, sham-controlled, randomized trial to
evaluate monochromatic infrared photoenergy. Diabetes Care
2008;31:316–321.
177. Brunelli B, Gorson KC. The use of complementary and alternative
medicines by patients with peripheral neuropathy. J Neurol Sci
2004;218:59–66.
178. Nicholas PK, Kemppainen JK, Canaval GE, et al. Symptom
management and self-care for peripheral neuropathy in HIV/
AIDS. AIDS Care 2007;19:179–189.
179. Wang SM, Kain ZN, White P. Acupuncture analgesia: I. The
scientific basis. Anesth Analg 2008;106:602–610.
180. Alimi D, Rubino C, Pichard-Leandri E, et al. Analgesic effect
of auricular acupuncture for cancer pain: a randomized, blinded,
controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4120–4126.
181. Shlay JC, Chaloner K, Max MB, et al. Acupuncture and
amitriptyline for pain due to HIV-related peripheral neuropathy:
a randomized controlled trial. Terry Beirn Community Programs
for Clinical Research on AIDS. JAMA 1998;280:1590–1595.
182. Schroder S, Liepert J, Remppis A, Greten JH. Acupuncture
treatment improves nerve conduction in peripheral neuropathy.
Eur J Neurol 2007;14:276–281.
183. Wong R, Sagar S. Acupuncture treatment for chemotherapy-
induced peripheral neuropathy—a case series. Acupunct Med
2006;24:87–91.
184. Haythornthwaite JA, Benrud-Larson LM. Psychological
assessment and treatment of patients with neuropathic pain. Curr
Pain Headache Rep 2001;5:124–129.
185. Head KA. Peripheral neuropathy: pathogenic mechanisms and
alternative therapies. Altern Med Rev 2006;11:294–329.
© Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network  |  Volume 7 Supplement 5  |  September 2009
186. Visovsky C, Daly BJ. Clinical evaluation and patterns of
chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. J Am Acad Nurse
Pract 2004;16:353–359.
187. Wampler MA, Miaskowski C, Hamel K, et al. The modified
total neuropathy score: a clinically feasible and valid measure of
taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy in women in breast cancer.
J Support Oncol 2006;4:W9–W16.
188. Nardone A, Galante M, Pareyson D, Schieppati M. Balance control
in sensory neuron disease. Clin Neurophysiol 2007;118:538–550.
189. Silsupadol P, Siu KC, Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott MH.
Training of balance under single- and dual-task conditions in
older adults with balance impairment. Phys Ther 2006;86:269–
281.
190. Wampler MA, Hamolsky D, Hamel K, et al. Case report: painful
peripheral neuropathy following treatment with docetaxel for
breast cancer. Clin J Oncol Nurs 2005;9:189–193.
191. Richardson JK, Sandman D, Vela S. A focused exercise regimen
improves clinical measures of balance in patients with peripheral
neuropathy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82:205–209.
192. Richardson JK, Hurvitz EA. Peripheral neuropathy: a true risk
factor for falls. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 1995;50:M211–215.
193. Ganz DA, Bao Y, Shekelle PG, Rubenstein LZ. Will my patient
fall? JAMA 2007;297:77–86.
194. Richardson JK, Thies SB, DeMott TK, Ashton-Miller JA. A
comparison of gait characteristics between older women with
and without peripheral neuropathy in standard and challenging
environments. J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;52:1532–1537.
195. Richardson JK, Thies SB, DeMott TK, Ashton-Miller JA.
Interventions improve gait regularity in patients with peripheral
neuropathy while walking on an irregular surface under low light.
J Am Geriatr Soc 2004;52:510–515.
196. Quist M, Rorth M, Zacho M, et al. High-intensity resistance
and cardiovascular training improve physical capacity in cancer
patients undergoing chemotherapy. Scand J Med Sci Sports
2006;16:349–357.
197. Thompson WR, Gordon NF, Pescatello LS. ACSM’s Guidelines
for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 8th ed. Philadelphia:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009.
198. Shah MH, Young D, Kindler HL, et al. Phase II study of
the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib (PS-341) in patients
with metastatic neuroendocrine tumors. Clin Cancer Res
2004;10:6111–6118.
199. Lahrmann H, Cortelli P, Hilz M, et al. EFNS guidelines on the
diagnosis and management of orthostatic hypotension. Eur J
Neurol 2006;13:930–936.
200. Selius BA, Subedi R. Urinary retention in adults: diagnosis and
initial management. Am Fam Physician 2008;77:643–650.
201. Slatkin N, Thomas J, Lipman AG, et al. Methylnaltrexone for
treatment of opioid-induced constipation in advanced illness
patients. J Support Oncol 2009;7:39–46.
202. Thomas J, Karver S, Cooney GA, et al. Methylnaltrexone for
opioid-induced constipation in advanced illness. N Engl J Med
2008;358:2332–2343.