Taxane-induced acute pain syndrome in patients with breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taxane acute pain syndrome (TAPS) is a clinically significant but understudied side effect. To date, there are few available methods for the prevention and therapeutic treatment of taxane-induced arthralgia and/or myalgia. There is also no data on the true frequency of TAPS. The purpose — to assess the incidence of TAPS, and to determine whether the occurrence of TAPS early in the cycle may be a predictor of a more severe form of chemo-induced polyneuropathy in patients with breast cancer. Material and methods. TAPS symptoms were prospectively assessed in 60 patients using the Neurotoxicity Questionnaire (PNQ), the Common Terminology Adverse Event Assessment Criteria Scale (NCI-CTCAE), the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and the Cancer Patient General Health Assessment Scale (ECOG) at baseline, 1 week and 13 weeks after the start of chemotherapy. Results. According to the PNQ questionnaire, 52% of patients treated with taxanes reported the development of arthralgia or myalgia. Arthralgia was observed in 93% of women, and myalgia in 22%. In the group of patients who developed acute pain syndrome after the first administration of taxanes, the severity of chemo-induced peripheral polyneuropathy was higher than in the group where no pain syndrome was observed. The difference was statistically significant both one week (p < 0.05) and 13 weeks (p < 0.05) after the first administration. Conclusions. The study found that arthralgias and/or myalgias may be common side effects of docetaxel/paclitaxel treatment, and amounted to 52%. We noted that patients with TAPS were more likely to develop peripheral neuropathy after the first administration. More research should be done to better understand the true incidence of TAPS, as well as to determine the optimal therapeutic and preventive treatment methods.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".