Taxane-induced arthralgia and myalgia: A literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Arthralgia and myalgia following taxane chemotherapy has been documented in the literature. However, these two toxicities associated with taxane treatment have not been closely examined in the literature, and data remain inconsistent in terms of the reported incidences of these toxicities. The purpose of this literature review was to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the incidence of taxane-induced arthralgia and myalgia, as well as to document the risk factors and preventative and therapeutic treatments that have been investigated. Methods A literature search was conducted in Ovid Medline, OldMedline, Embase, Embase Classic, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using relevant subject headings and keywords such as: "arthralgia," "myalgia," "muscle pain," "joint pain," "taxane," "chemotherapy," "docetaxel," "paclitaxel." Results The reported incidences of arthralgia and myalgia were variable. Taxane chemotherapy was found to be associated with greater incidences of arthralgia and myalgia than non-taxane forms of chemotherapy. Moreover, docetaxel and nab-paclitaxel seem to be associated with lower incidences of arthralgia and myalgia than paclitaxel. Finally, the literature on prevention and therapeutic treatment of taxane-induced arthralgia and myalgia is scarce. Conclusion More studies should be done in order to more conclusively identify optimal therapeutic and preventative treatments as well as different risk factors. We recommend that a prospective study be done in order to better understand the true incidence of arthralgia and myalgia in patients being treated with the paclitaxel, docetaxel, and nab-paclitaxel.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".