Wolf, Sherry L.

9587 Background: CIPN is characterized by adjectives not covered directly by most common measures of pain and functional limitations. Possible descriptors include numbness, tingling and shooting/burning pain. A prospective neuropathy treatment trial provided data to explore the relationship between self-reported aspects of this symptom. Methods: Baseline EORTC QLQ CIPN20 data and NCI CTCAE V3.0 (CTC)neuropathy grade (I-IV) were provided for all patients on trial. Spearman correlation coefficients and Kappa's coefficients of agreement were calculated between individual items and subscales of the CIPN20 as well as the CTC neuropathy scale. Simple regression models were applied to examine the association between the sensory symptoms and motor function in the fingers/hands (F/H). 200 patients provided 80% power to detect a correlation coefficient of 0.20 with a 5% Type I error. Results: A majority of patients reported “quite a bit” to “very much” numbness (57%) or tingling (62%) in F/H compared to “a little” or “not at all” (numbness (43%), tingling (38%)) by the CIPN20. In contrast, only 13% of the participants had grade III/IV neuropathy determined by the CTC scale. Fewer patients reported the higher two levels of CIPN20-measured shooting/burning pain in F/H (20% “quite a bit” to “very much”). Numbness and tingling were highly correlated (kappa=0.56), while neither were in high agreement with shooting/burning pain (kappa= 0.05 (tingling) and 0.14 (numbness)). The CIPN20 sensory and motor subscales were significantly associated with each other (p<.0001) but were not or only weakly associated with the CTC. Specifically, tingling, numbness, and shooting/burning pain were not associated with the CTC (R=0.16, 0.18 and 0 .11, respectively). Using the CIPN20, all three sensations; numbness, tingling and shooting or burning pain were strongly associated with motor function. Conclusions: The most common moderate to severe CIPN symptoms were numbness and tingling with shooting/burning pain being less common. Shooting/ burning pain appears to be a separate symptom experience from numbness and tingling. The CTC neuropathy grading scale appears to be less sensitive than the CIPN20 in picking up sensory symptoms. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

19613 Background: Paclitaxel therapy often results in a unique sub-acute pain syndrome, whose pathophysiology is unknown. While this syndrome is often termed as a ‘myalgia’ or ‘arthralgia’, it has not been demonstrated to be associated with any structural injury of muscles or joints. Identifying the pathophysiology mechanisms that result in the paclitaxel-acute pain syndrome might be a positive step in the development of effective prevention and/or treatment strategies. With the hypothesis that the paclitaxel-acute pain syndrome occurs as a result of nerve injury, an observational study to clarify the clinical characteristics of this syndrome was initiated. Methods: Oncology patients who were treated with at least one dose of paclitaxel and reported developing sub-acute pain were questioned using a detailed structured interview. Various aspects of the pain, including the time of onset, duration, location, severity, and exacerbating factors were evaluated. Data were tabulated descriptively. Results: Eighteen patients were interviewed. The onset of pain typically occurred 1–2 days after therapy and lasted for a median of 4–5 days. Pain was most commonly located in the back, hips, shoulders, thighs, legs and feet, with the most common descriptors used being ‘aching’ or ‘deep pain’. Commonly used adjectives to describe the pain were: ‘radiating’, ‘shooting’, ‘aching’, ‘stabbing’ and ‘pulsating’. Some patients described increased pain with weight bearing or walking. Fifteen of 18 patients specifically denied localization of pain to either joints or muscles. Conclusions: The nature of the pain, i.e. , generalized, deep aching pain, the notation of increased sensitivity with weight bearing (mechanical hyperalgesia) and the lack of localization to joints or muscles, support the hypothesis that the paclitaxel-acute pain syndrome results from a hyperalgesic dysfunction of nociceptive receptors, their fibers, or the spinothalamic system. These clinical conclusions are supported by the recent findings that markers of cellular injury can be identified in peripheral nerve tissues shortly following paclitaxel administration in an animal model (Peters CM, et al., Exp Neurol. 2007 Jan;203(1):42- 54). No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Abstract Objective: The need for effective nonhormonal treatments for hot flash management without unwanted side effects continues. The primary aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the effect of combining a nonhormonal pharmacologic agent with a behavioral treatment for hot flash reduction. Methods: Seventy-one postmenopausal women were randomized to one of four groups: venlafaxine 75 mg + hypnosis (VH) versus venlafaxine 75 mg + sham hypnosis (VSH) versus a placebo pill + hypnosis (PH) versus placebo pill + sham hypnosis (PSH). Women recorded hot flash severity and frequency in a daily diary, in real time. The intrapatient difference in hot flash score (frequency × severity) at 8 weeks was analyzed using a General Estimating Equation model, using VSH as the referent arm, controlling for baseline hot flashes. Results: The active arms including PH or VH were not statistically significantly different than VSH (P = 0.34, P = 0.05, respectively). Women in each active arm reported hot flash reductions of about 50%, with the PSH group reporting a 25% reduction. Women receiving the PSH reported statistically significantly smaller reductions in hot flash score than women in the referent VSH arm (P = 0.001). There were no significant negative side effects during the course of the study. Conclusions: Hypnosis alone reduced hot flashes equal to venlafaxine alone, but the combination of hypnosis and venlafaxine did not reduce hot flashes more than either treatment alone. More research is needed to clarify whether combining hypnosis with a different antidepressant would provide synergistic benefits.

Purpose The characteristics and natural history of the paclitaxel–acute pain syndrome (P-APS) and paclitaxel's more chronic neuropathy have not been well delineated. Methods Patients receiving weekly paclitaxel (70 to 90 mg/m 2 ) completed daily questionnaires and weekly European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CIPN) –20 instruments during the entire course of therapy. Results P-APS symptoms peaked 3 days after chemotherapy. Twenty percent of patients had pain scores of 5 to 10 of 10 with the first dose of paclitaxel. Sensory neuropathy symptoms were more prominent than were motor or autonomic neuropathy symptoms. Of the sensory neuropathy symptoms, numbness and tingling were more prominent than was shooting or burning pain. Patients with higher P-APS pain scores with the first dose of paclitaxel appeared to have more chronic neuropathy. Conclusion These data support that the P-APS is related to nerve pathology as opposed to being arthralgias and/or myalgias. Numbness and tingling are more prominent chronic neuropathic symptoms than is shooting or burning pain.

Purpose Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is a dose-limiting toxicity of capecitabine for which no effective preventative treatment has been definitively demonstrated. This trial was conducted on the basis of preliminary data that a urea/lactic acid–based topical keratolytic agent (ULABTKA) may prevent HFS. Patients and Methods A randomized, double-blind phase III trial evaluated 137 patients receiving their first ever cycle of capecitabine at a dose of either 2,000 or 2,500 mg/m2 per day for 14 days. Patients were randomly assigned to a ULABTKA versus a placebo cream, which was applied to the hands and feet twice per day for 21 days after the start of capecitabine. Patients completed an HFS diary (HFSD) daily. HFS toxicity grade (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE] v3.0) was also collected at baseline and at the end of each cycle. The primary end point was the incidence of moderate/severe HFS symptoms in the first treatment cycle, based on the patient-reported HFSD. Results The percentage of patients with moderate/severe HFS symptoms was not different between groups, being 13.6% in the ULABTKA arm and 10.2% in the placebo arm (P = .768 by Fisher's exact test). The odds ratio was 1.37 (95% CI, 0.37 to 5.76). Cycle 1 CTCAE skin toxicity was higher in the ULABTKA arm but not significantly so (33% v 27%; P = .82). No significant differences were observed in other toxicities between groups. Conclusion These data do not support the efficacy of a ULABTKA cream for preventing HFS symptoms in patients receiving capecitabine.