1. Introduction
Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common adverse effect of neurotoxic anticancer drugs, including platinum derivatives (cisplatin, oxaliplatin), spindle poisons (taxanes: paclitaxel, docetaxel; vinca alkaloids: vincristine; epothilones; eribulin), bortezomib, and thalidomide [ 1 ]. CIPN is typically described as a distal and symmetric polyneuropathy with a “stockings and gloves” distribution. Its overall symptomatology includes paresthesia (tingling, numbness) and dysesthesia (thermal and tactile allodynia, and neuropathic pain). The prevalence of CIPN is approximately 68.1% in the first month after the end of chemotherapy, 60.0% at three months, and 30.0% after six months [ 2 ]. This condition significantly affects health-related quality of life and causes psychological distress [ 3 , 4 ]. Currently, no preventive strategy is recommended, and duloxetine has a moderate recommendation for the management of pain from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) for managing neuropathic pain [ 5 , 6 ]. Consequently, oncologists may need to consider reducing or discontinuing the neurotoxic anticancer regimen to mitigate CIPN severity [ 5 , 6 , 7 ], even though this approach may negatively impact disease control and progression-free survival [ 8 ].
CIPN screening in patients lacks a gold standard. A combination of clinician-reported outcome measures (i.e., clinical examination, electrophysiological testing, quantitative sensory testing) and patient-reported outcome measures (self-administered questionnaires) would be the best option [ 6 ]. Unfortunately, these examinations are time-consuming during oncological follow-up [ 9 ]. In patients at risk of serious neurotoxicity, more extensive CIPN evaluations remain critical [ 10 ]. Given that CIPN severity is linked to the dose of neurotoxic anticancer drugs [ 6 ], identifying sensitive and specific biomarkers would enable clinicians to modify anticancer protocols and limit its occurrence and severity.
Circulating blood biomarkers of neurotoxicity, such as neurofilament light chain (NfL), have shown promise for CIPN screening in both animal models (cisplatin or paclitaxel) [ 11 , 12 ] and humans (paclitaxel and carboplatin [ 13 ]; oxaliplatin [ 14 ]). However, despite being viewed as an objective and innovative strategy for detecting CIPN, no single biomarker has yet proven useful for diagnosing and monitoring CIPN, and routine application is not recommended according to the ESMO [ 6 ].
CIPN is a unique terminology used to define the symptomatology of the peripheral neurotoxicity of anticancer drugs. But, CIPN results from the neurotoxic effect of different anticancer drugs with different toxicodynamic pathways (platinum adducts to nucleic acids for platinum derivatives, alteration of microtubules turnover for spindle poisons, and inhibition of the 26S proteasome for bortezomib). Besides ion channel disorders, oxidative stress, and neuroinflammation, no clear unique pathways can be defined for all the neurotoxic anticancer drugs [ 15 ]. In the same way, symptomatology is grossly the same across different neurotoxic anticancer drugs [ 15 ], but differences exist regarding thermal sensitivity. For example, in cancer patients, oxaliplatin is responsible for cold and heat-triggered pain, without alteration of cool and warm detection thresholds [ 16 ]. Cisplatin is not responsible for any thermal alteration [ 16 ]. Bortezomib is responsible for a loss of heat pain perception and warm detection thresholds, without alteration of cold pain and cool detection thresholds [ 17 ]. Vincristine is responsible for a loss of perception for cold and heat pain, as well as cool and warm detection [ 18 ].
Consequently, it is important to keep in mind that these blood biomarkers for CIPN should be sufficiently robust to be usable for any neurotoxic anticancer drug, encompassing all these neurotoxic mechanisms. Moreover, these blood biomarkers should be validated in animal models of CIPN, enhancing the translationality of non-clinical studies in rodents and improving the predictive validity of pathophysiological and pharmacological findings.
The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate a panel of blood biomarkers in four animal models of CIPN and investigate their relationship with neuropathic pain. The selection of blood biomarkers was based on the existing scientific literature focused on CIPN or peripheral neuropathy. These biomarkers include NfL, which exhibits increased blood concentrations in response to oxaliplatin treatment in colorectal cancer patients and is associated with the severity grade of CIPN [ 14 ]; glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), demonstrating elevated blood concentrations in patients suffering from chronic sensory-motor axonal neuropathy, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, and multifocal motor neuropathy [ 19 ]; osteopontin (OPN), showing an inverse correlation between blood concentrations assessed before taxane-based chemotherapy and axonal loss in the sural nerve after treatment [ 20 ]; and nerve growth factor (NGF), displaying increased blood concentrations in cancer patients with painful CIPN [ 21 ]. In addition, we utilized available biomonitoring kits to explore pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines (Milliplex ® , Rat Cytokine/Chemokine Panel—27 Plex, Merck, Saint Quentin en Yvelines, France) due to the involvement of neuroinflammatory processes in animal models of CIPN. This includes an increase in blood concentrations of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), interferon gamma (IFNγ), interleukin 1 alpha (IL-1a), interleukin 1 beta (IL-1b), interleukin 2 (IL-2), interleukin 6 (IL-6), and monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP-1) in patients or rodents treated with neurotoxic anticancer drugs [ 22 , 23 ]. The chosen animal models of CIPN have been previously documented in the literature for investigating CIPN pathophysiology and identifying potential pharmacological targets [ 24 ]. Neuropathic pain was selected as the primary outcome measure due to its convenience and non-invasiveness for assessing peripheral neuropathy in animals. Additionally, it is characteristic of CIPN severity in patients [ 3 , 4 ].
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Animals
Experiments were performed with 96 animals (five-week-old male Sprague Dawley rats, Janvier Labs, Saint Berthevin, France). Twenty-four rats were allocated for each animal model of CIPN (twelve control and twelve anticancer drug-treated animals). Animals were housed (four per cage) in the animal facility, with water and food ad libitum, and kept in conditions of 12:12 h light/dark cycle (non-reversed) and 50% hygrometry. Animals were acclimated to the animal facility for five days before the beginning of the experiments. All the experiments were conducted in accordance with the ARRIVE guideline [ 25 ]. The present study received ethical approval from the Animal Care and Use Committee of Auvergne (C2EA-02) and from the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation (Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation), with the following agreement number: N°APAFIS#21686. The number of experimental animals was kept to a minimum.
2.2. Animal Models of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy
Oxaliplatin (Leancare, Conwy, UK) was administered intravenously eight times (2 mg/kg) on days 0, 4, 7, 11, 14, 18, 21, and 25, resulting in a cumulative dose of 16 mg/kg ( Figure 1 ). For each injection, oxaliplatin was diluted to 2 mg/mL in a 5% glucose solution from a 4 mg/mL stock solution (solvent: 5% glucose) [ 26 ]. Control animals received the same volume of the vehicle (5% glucose).
Paclitaxel (Leancare, Conwy, UK) was injected intraperitoneally four times (2 mg/kg) on days 0, 2, 4, and 7, resulting in a cumulative dose of 8 mg/kg ( Figure 1 ). For each injection, paclitaxel was diluted to 1 mg/mL in 0.9% NaCl from a 6 mg/mL stock solution (solvent: cremophor ® EL (C5135, Sigma-Aldrich, Saint-Louis, France)/ethanol, 1/1) [ 27 ]. Control animals received the same volume of the vehicle (cremophor ® EL/ethanol (1/1) diluted 1/6 in 0.9% NaCl).
Bortezomib (Leancare, Conwy, UK) was injected intraperitoneally five times (0.2 mg/kg) on days 0, 1, 3, 4, and 7, resulting in a cumulative dose of 1 mg/kg ( Figure 1 ). For each injection, bortezomib was diluted to 0.1 mg/mL in 0.9% NaCl (vehicle) from a 1 mg/mL stock solution (solvent: 5% DMSO (276855, Sigma-Aldrich, Saint-Louis, France)) (adapted from Yamamoto et al. [ 28 ]). Control animals received the same volume of the vehicle (5% DMSO diluted 1/10 in 0.9% NaCl).
Vincristine (Leancare, Conwy, UK) was injected intravenously five times (0.15 mg/kg) on days 0, 2, 4, 7, and 9, resulting in a cumulative dose of 0.75 mg/kg ( Figure 1 ). For each injection, vincristine was diluted to 0.15 mg/mL in 0.9% NaCl (vehicle) from a 1 mg/mL stock solution (solvent: 0.9% NaCl) (adapted from [ 29 ]). Control animals received the same volume of the vehicle (0.9% NaCl).
To prevent anticancer drug exposure between animals within the same cage through feces and urine, treatments for each animal model were randomized by the entire cage of animals.
2.3. Assessment of Nociceptive Disorders (Tactile Allodynia)
Tactile nociceptive thresholds were assessed using an electronic von Frey test (Bioseb, Vitrolles, France) ( Figure 1 ) [ 30 ]. Tactile allodynia is a common sensory disorder reported in animal models of CIPN, whereas thermal disorders are less consistently observed between CIPN models [ 24 , 31 ].
Rats were placed individually in plastic compartments on an elevated wire floor and allowed to habituate for 15 min before each experiment. The von Frey apparatus, consisting of a plastic tip fitted in a hand-held force transducer, was applied perpendicularly to the animal’s right hind paw from below, and the force applied was gradually increased until paw withdrawal. The maximum force applied (expressed in grams) to induce paw withdrawal was recorded automatically. The two measurements not differing by more than 10 g were averaged and assigned as the nociceptive threshold [ 30 ]. Three days before CIPN induction, each rat was habituated to the plastic compartments to avoid any fear or stress during the experiment. The experimenter was blinded to the treatment attribution.
2.4. Assessments of Serum Biomarkers
Blood samples were collected approximately one week after the last injection of anticancer drugs in order to avoid unexpected interferences between biomarkers and anticancer drugs ( Figure 1 ). The tactile allodynia induced by these anticancer drugs has been described to be stable several days after the last injection of these anticancer drugs [ 31 , 32 ]. Blood was collected in vials with clot activator and kept at room temperature for a maximum of one hour. Thereafter, blood samples were centrifugated at 4100 rpm at 20 °C for 10 min. Finally, serum was collected, aliquoted, and stored at −80 °C until analysis.
Concentrations of 31 biomarkers were assessed in serum, using available commercial kits, and according to the manufacturer’s instructions ( Supplementary file Table S1 ). For all the analytes measured, serum samples were randomized on assay plates to reduce possible batch effects. When the serum concentration of a biomarker was not quantifiable and below the lower limit of quantification, the value of the concentration was replaced by the lower limit of quantification of the biomarker [ 33 ].
2.5. Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using Stata (version 15, StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) and R (version 4.1.3; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). All the tests were two-sided, with an alpha level set at 5%. All the continuous variables were expressed by mean ± standard deviation. Comparisons of repeated continuous variables (electronic von Frey test and weight of animals) were performed using a repeated-measure ANOVA and followed by a post hoc Tukey–Kramer test. The serum concentrations of biomarkers of control animals were compared according to the four anticancer drugs using the Kruskal–Wallis test. The serum concentrations of biomarkers were compared between treated and control animals using the Mann–Whitney test. The results were expressed as effect sizes (ES) with their 95% confidence interval (95%CI), and interpreted according to Cohen’s recommendations [ 34 ]: 0.2 = small effect, 0.5 = medium effect, and 0.8 = large effect. Spearman’s correlation coefficients were calculated between serum concentrations of biomarkers and tactile allodynia thresholds assessed after the end of anticancer drug injections and interpreted as follows (absolute value): ≥0.70 = strong correlation, 0.50–0.69 = moderate correlation, 0.30–0.49 = low correlation, 0.00–0.29 = no or negligible correlation. Finally, a factor analysis of mixed data was performed to study the similarities between animals, considering both continuous and categorical variables, as well as to examine the relationships among all variables. For this analysis, variables were chosen according to clinical relevance and statistical distribution (characteristics always present or always absent were not considered), and only animals without missing data were used (n = 70).
3. Results
3.1. Animal Models of CIPN
The flow chart of the animals analyzed is presented in Figure 2 .
Oxaliplatin-, bortezomib-, and vincristine-treated animals (not paclitaxel-treated animals) presented a lower body weight than the control animals starting from day 14 for oxaliplatin, day 3 for bortezomib, and day 4 for vincristine, and until the end of the experiment ( Figure 3 A).
At the end of the anticancer drug injections, tactile allodynia thresholds of anticancer drug-treated animals were lower than control ones (ES and 95%CI for oxaliplatin: −1.65 [−2.68 to −0.58]; paclitaxel: −1.61 [−2.66 to −0.52]; bortezomib: −4.08 [−5.82 to −2.30]; vincristine: −2.50 [−3.55 to −1.42]). No difference of tactile allodynia thresholds between the anticancer-treated animals and control ones was reported on day 0 (basal value) ( Figure 3 B).
3.2. Serum Biomarkers of Neuropathic Pain
Concentrations of several biomarkers were significantly different between control animals among the four animal models of CIPN (Fractalkine: p = 0.01, IL-1α: p = 0.04, IL-6: p = 0.04, IL-13: p = 0.01, IL-17A: p = 0.01, LIX: p = 0.02, and VEGF: p = 0.02 ( Table 1 )). In most cases, control animals of the paclitaxel model had higher concentrations of these biomarkers than control animals of other CIPN models (except for LIX, for which control animals of oxaliplatin and paclitaxel had lower concentrations than control animals of other CIPN models). Because of these variations in biomarkers in control animals, it was decided not to pool the results of biomarker concentrations for control animals in order to perform a comparison between a single control group and each anticancer drug.
Comparisons of biomarker concentrations between anticancer-treated animals and control ones are presented in Figure 4 (details of all the biomarker concentrations, see Supplementary Table S1 ).
For oxaliplatin, the MCP-1 and RANTES concentrations were significantly higher in anticancer drug-treated animals than in control ones (ES and 95%CI: 1.42 [0.39 to 2.41] p = 0.01, and 1.29 [0.28 to 2.26] p = 0.02, respectively). NfL concentrations were significantly lower in anticancer drug-treated animals than in control ones (−1.36 [−2.34 to −0.34] p = 0.01). IL-10 concentration was lower in oxaliplatin-treated animals ( p = 0.04), but the effect size was not significant (−0.71 [−1.62 to 0.22]).
For paclitaxel, only the NfL concentration tended to be higher in anticancer drug-treated animals than in control ones (ES and 95%CI: 0.63 [−0.31 to 1.55] p = 0.03).
For bortezomib, only the LIX concentration was significantly lower in anticancer drug-treated animals than in control ones (ES and 95%CI: −1.72 [−2.82 to −0.58] p = 0.003).
For vincristine, fractalkine, IL-18, IP-10, LIX, MCP-1, MIP-1α, NfL, RANTES, and VEGF concentrations were significantly higher in anticancer drug-treated animals than in control ones (ES and 95%CI: 1.56 [0.60 to 2.48] p = 0.002, 1.42 [0.49 to 2.33] p = 0.003, 1.17 [0.27 to 2.04] p = 0.01, 1.79 [0.80 to 2.75] p = 0.001, 3.93 [2.46 to 5.37] p < 0.001, 3.77 [2.34 to 5.17] p < 0.001, 4.15 [2.69 to 5.58] p < 0.001, 4.88 [3.16 to 6.57] p < 0.001, and 4.79 [3.10 to 6.46] p < 0.001, respectively). It is to be noticed that the OPN concentration was higher in bortezomib-treated animals ( p = 0.03), but the effect size was not significant (0.71 [−0.15; 1.55]).
Finally, none of the variations in biomarker concentrations (increase or decrease) were similar between animal models of CIPN. Only the MCP-1 and RANTES concentrations showed a similar increase both in oxaliplatin- and vincristine-treated animals; likewise for NfL concentrations for paclitaxel- and vincristine-treated animals. Moreover, LIX concentrations presented opposite variations between bortezomib- and vincristine-treated animals, and similarly for NfL concentrations for oxaliplatin- and for both paclitaxel- and vincristine-treated animals.
Correlations between biomarker concentrations and tactile allodynia thresholds assessed after the end of anticancer drug injections, and for all animals (control + anticancer drug-treated animals), are presented in Figure 5 . For oxaliplatin and paclitaxel models, no significant correlation was reported between biomarker concentrations and tactile allodynia thresholds. For the bortezomib model, a moderate positive correlation was reported between LIX concentrations and tactile allodynia thresholds, indicating that the biomarker concentration increases as the tactile allodynia thresholds increase. For the vincristine model, strong negative correlations were reported between LIX, MCP-1, NfL, and VEGF concentrations and tactile allodynia thresholds, indicating that the biomarkers’ concentrations increase as the tactile allodynia thresholds decrease. Additionally, moderate negative correlations were observed for fractalkine, MIP-1α, and RANTES concentrations. When pooling all the animal models, only the MCP-1 concentrations were significantly and negatively correlated (low level) with tactile allodynia thresholds. The NfL and RANTES concentrations were significantly and negatively correlated with tactile allodynia thresholds (negligible level).
A factorial analysis of mixed data was conducted on selected quantitative and qualitative variables (for details, see Figure 6 ) to explore the relationship between different variables to determine whether they have an impact on each other and, here, to explore whether the concentrations of biomarkers would aid in discriminating CIPN models. The model used was able to report data in a two-dimensional plot diagram ( Figure 6 ). In this analysis, all the vincristine-treated animals (green full dots, Figure 6 ) were isolated from other animals (control and anticancer drug-treated animals), whereas nearly all the animals (control and anticancer-treated animals) of other animal models were plotted together. Interestingly, the three control animals of the paclitaxel model tended to be isolated from other animals (observation to be interpreted with caution).
4. Discussion
The aim of this study was to assess a panel of serum proteins as biomarkers of neuropathic pain in validated animal models of CIPN [ 24 , 35 ] to identify the most relevant biomarkers and candidates for further non-clinical and translational studies.
No serum biomarkers assessed showed consistent modifications across all four animal models of CIPN used. Consequently, none of these biomarkers can be recommended as a unique circulating biomarker of CIPN-related neuropathic pain, regardless of the anticancer drug involved. The most interesting biomarker would be one that could be used for different neurotoxic anticancer drugs. However, some of the assessed biomarkers whose serum concentrations were consistently modified in at least two CIPN models (anticancer drug vs. control) could be of interest, such as NfL (paclitaxel and vincristine), MCP-1 (oxaliplatin and vincristine), and RANTES (oxaliplatin and vincristine).
NfL is probably the most frequently studied circulating biomarker of CIPN. Blood concentrations of NfL and other neurofilaments are typically interpreted as markers of axonal damage, a common feature across various neurological diseases characterized by demyelination, neuropathy, dendritic loss, cell death, and chronic inflammation [ 36 ]. In rats, serum NfL levels rapidly increased after administrations of paclitaxel (10 mg/kg, intravenous injections once a week for 4 weeks), cisplatin (2 mg/kg, intraperitoneal injections twice a week for 4 weeks), and vincristine (0.2 mg/kg, intravenous injection once/week for 4 weeks). For these three animal models of CIPN, serum NfL concentrations significantly increased from the first week of treatment until the end of the experiments, compared to control animals. Peripheral neuropathy was confirmed by morphological and neurophysiological alterations in caudal nerves [ 11 , 37 ]. In mice, two studies identified an increase in blood NfL concentrations in animals treated by repeated injections of paclitaxel (15 mg/kg, 7 injections for 15 days [ 12 ]; 2 mg/kg, 4 injections for 8 days [ 38 ]). However, one study did not find any increase in blood NfL concentrations after repeated injections of oxaliplatin (9 mg/kg, 6 injections for 19 days [ 12 ]). In patients, serum NfL concentrations have been associated with oxaliplatin-related CIPN in colorectal cancer patients and associated with CIPN grade and electrophysiological disorders [ 14 ]. Similarly, serum NfL concentrations have been associated with paclitaxel ± carboplatin-related CIPN in breast, ovarian, or endometrial cancer patients and correlated with the scores of CIPN questionnaires [ 39 , 40 , 41 ], CIPN grade [ 13 , 40 , 42 ], and nerve conduction disorders [ 41 , 43 ]. Finally, serum NfL concentrations were higher in multiple myeloma patients with an ongoing bortezomib treatment than multiple myeloma patients after past bortezomib treatment and healthy controls [ 44 ]. In this study, serum NfL concentrations were correlated with electrophysiological disorders. Interestingly, serum NfL concentrations were not associated with pain [ 44 ].
MCP-1, also known as C-C motif ligand 2 (CCL2), has been described as a biomarker of neuroinflammation, and its concentrations in blood and cerebrospinal fluid have been found to increase in patients with various neurological diseases, including Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, ischemic stroke, and traumatic brain injury [ 45 , 46 ]. Plasma concentrations of MCP-1 have been associated with pain severity in fibromyalgia patients but not associated with other covariates such as body mass index, medications, severity of depression, and overall fibromyalgia burden [ 47 ]. Recently, it has been suggested that MCP-1 could serve as a severity marker of the neuropathy in patients [ 48 ].
RANTES, also known as C-C motif ligand 5 (CCL5), is a pro-inflammatory chemokine involved in regulating immunoreactions and recruiting immune cells, such as monocytes, granulocytes, and T cells, to sites of inflammation [ 49 ]. Blood concentrations of RANTES have also been associated with neurological diseases, including Parkinson’s disease, traumatic brain injury, and human immunodeficiency peripheral neuropathy [ 45 , 50 , 51 ].
Both serum concentrations of MCP-1 and RANTES were increased in the same animal models of CIPN (oxaliplatin and vincristine), suggesting a potential shared neuroinflammatory pathway. It is worth noting that neuroinflammation has been described in all types of CIPN [ 52 , 53 ].
In the animal model of vincristine-induced peripheral neuropathy, several concentrations of biomarkers were strongly (LIX, MCP-1, NfL, and VEGF) to moderately (fractalkine, MIP-1α, and RANTES) correlated with tactile allodynia thresholds, whereas for the bortezomib model, only LIX concentrations were moderately correlated with tactile allodynia thresholds, and no such correlations were reported for oxaliplatin and paclitaxel. Moreover, the factorial analysis of mixed data performed on all the study data (including the concentrations of biomarkers) discriminated vincristine-treated animals from all the other ones (treated and control animals from other animal models of CIPN). No clear explanation can be proposed. Some subtle differences in pathological pathways have been identified in bioengineered sensory nerve tissue exposed to vincristine, cisplatin, or paclitaxel [ 54 ], as well as in animal models of paclitaxel and oxaliplatin [ 55 ]. However, all these neurotoxic anticancer drugs share common pathological pathways, including oxidative stress, apoptosis, changes in cellular calcium homeostasis, axonal damage, alterations in neuronal excitability, immune system activation, and inflammation of nervous tissues [ 53 ]. In the clinical setting, differences among neurotoxic anticancer drugs remain poorly explored. For example, both oxaliplatin- and paclitaxel-related CIPN are characterized by acute symptoms and a worsening of CIPN with the repetition of chemotherapy cycles. However, symptoms improve after paclitaxel cessation and worsen after oxaliplatin treatment [ 56 ]. Another example of differences in symptoms between neurotoxic anticancer drugs can be observed in quantitative sensory testing. Oxaliplatin is known to induce cold and heat hypersensitivity [ 16 ], while bortezomib induces heat hyposensitivity [ 17 ].
Control animals in the paclitaxel model exhibited different serum biomarker concentrations compared to control animals in other CIPN models. This difference suggests that the paclitaxel vehicle (1/6 diluted Cremophor ® EL/ethanol 50/50) may impact these serum biomarker concentrations. Cremophor ® EL has previously been identified as a potential neurotoxic agent in rats, leading to mechanical hyperalgesia and allodynia, which are associated with peripheral axonal damage [ 57 ].
The primary outcome used to assess and validate CIPN in animals was the presence of nociceptive disorders, specifically tactile allodynia thresholds assessed using the electronic von Frey test. Neuropathic pain serves as a reliable marker of CIPN severity in patients [ 3 , 4 , 58 ]. Measuring nociceptive thresholds in living rodents is convenient and allows for repeatability [ 59 ]. In this study, it might have been possible to enhance nociceptive threshold assessment with additional behavioral tests, such as thermal sensitivity. However, it is worth noting that thermal sensitivity is not consistently reported in all animal models of CIPN. For instance, in rat models of bortezomib-, oxaliplatin-, paclitaxel-, or vincristine-related CIPN, cold allodynia was observed, but only bortezomib, oxaliplatin, and paclitaxel models exhibited heat allodynia [ 26 , 31 ]. While histopathological analyses of peripheral nervous system tissues and electrophysiological analyses of peripheral nerves could be used to validate CIPN in animals [ 60 , 61 ], they are often considered cumbersome, diverge from clinical routine practices [ 62 , 63 ], and may limit finally the translationality of studies.
To further explore and validate the potential translational implications of our study findings, it is essential to investigate NfL, MCP-1, and RANTES in cancer patients receiving neurotoxic anticancer drugs, particularly in relation to the occurrence of CIPN. As of now, NfL stands out as the most extensively studied biomarker for CIPN. A translational study has highlighted its good correlation with paclitaxel neurotoxicity, both in vitro using induced pluripotent stem cell-derived sensory neurons and in cancer patients [ 39 ]. Recently, another clinical study corroborated the good correlation between blood concentrations of NfL and the severity of CIPN in breast cancer patients treated with paclitaxel. NfL levels showed a strong correlation with cumulative doses of paclitaxel, moderate correlations with sensory scores from the QLQ-CIPN20 (self-administered questionnaire on CIPN), and total neuropathy scores (clinician-reported outcome) [ 64 ]. Although more data are required to fully validate the utility of NfL, it has the potential to serve as a biomarker for monitoring and mitigating CIPN.
However, the relationship between blood concentrations of MCP-1 and RANTES with CIPN severity has not been explored in any clinical assay to date. Initiating these studies in cancer patients is crucial.
The cornerstone of these cross-validations between in vitro/in vivo studies and clinical assays requires an assessment for each class of neurotoxic anticancer drugs (i.e., platinum derivatives, taxanes, vinca alkaloids, and bortezomib) to ensure the robustness of the biomarker. In the end, this/these biomarker(s) could serve as common biological endpoints bridging cells, animals, and patients.
Limitations
In the present study, young animals were used. In addition to vincristine, which is used for hematological malignancies that can affect young patients, most of the anticancer drugs used here are prescribed in older adults for solid tumors. Various doses (both low and high), various treatment durations for each anticancer drug, and different time points for blood sampling could have been considered to emphasize the sensitivity and specificity of biomarker usefulness with respect to CIPN severity. Further non-clinical studies should be conducted on both male and female animals to improve the translationality of the results. Although CIPN is described as more severe in females than in male patients [ 3 , 65 ], the results in animals are less clear, with some sex differences being more pronounced in male animals than in female ones, and vice versa [ 66 ].
Regarding these study limitations with single doses, various treatment durations, single time points, and young male animals, these conditions and variabilities should have emphasized the robustness of the biomarkers assessed. Finally, it should be kept in mind that this pilot and exploratory study did not aim to describe precisely the kinetic, specificity, and sensitivity of each serum protein assessed. This pilot study aimed to screen a panel of serum biomarkers that might be of interest for further and specific studies on a limited number of biomarkers.
5. Conclusions
None of the assessed biomarkers can be recommended as a unique biomarker of CIPN-related pain, regardless of the specific anticancer drug used. Nevertheless, the results presented here highlight MCP-1, NfL, and RANTES as potential candidates, and further studies are needed to define their specificity, sensitivity, onset, and kinetics during the administration of anticancer drugs. Identifying blood biomarkers for peripheral neuropathy symptoms remains an important unmet need, not only in non-clinical and clinical studies but also for routine practice.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/toxics11121004/s1 , Table S1: Serum concentrations of biomarkers for treated and control animals for oxaliplatin, paclitaxel, bortezomib, and vincristine.
Click here for additional data file.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, D.B.; methodology, D.B., J.D. and V.S.; software, D.B. and J.D.; validation, D.B., J.D., C.L. and V.S.; formal analysis, D.B., J.D., C.L. and V.S.; investigation, D.B., J.D., C.D. (Cristelle Dalbos), E.C. and M.E.; resources, D.B. and V.S.; data curation, D.B., J.D. and C.L.; writing—original draft preparation, D.B., J.D., C.L. and V.S.; writing—review and editing, D.B., C.D. (Claire Demiot), J.B., V.M. and V.S.; visualization, D.B., C.D. (Claire Demiot), V.M., J.B. and V.S.; supervision, D.B. and V.S.; project administration, D.B.; funding acquisition, D.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The animal study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee (Animal Care and Use Committee of Auvergne—C2EA-02) and from the French Ministry of Higher Education, Research and Innovation (Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation), with the following agreement number N°APAFIS#21686, 17 September 2019.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Data will be available upon request to the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Kerckhove N. Collin A. Condé S. Chaleteix C. Pezet D. Balayssac D. Long-Term Effects, Pathophysiological Mechanisms, and Risk Factors of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathies: A Comprehensive Literature Review Front. Pharmacol. 2017 8 86 10.3389/fphar.2017.00086 28286483 PMC5323411
2. Seretny M. Currie G.L. Sena E.S. Ramnarine S. Grant R. MacLeod M.R. Colvin L.A. Fallon M. Incidence, Prevalence, and Predictors of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Pain 2014 155 2461 2470 10.1016/j.pain.2014.09.020 25261162
3. Selvy M. Pereira B. Kerckhove N. Gonneau C. Feydel G. Pétorin C. Vimal-Baguet A. Melnikov S. Kullab S. Hebbar M. Long-Term Prevalence of Sensory Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy for 5 Years after Adjuvant FOLFOX Chemotherapy to Treat Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study J. Clin. Med. 2020 9 2400 10.3390/jcm9082400 32727095 PMC7465246
4. Selvy M. Kerckhove N. Pereira B. Barreau F. Nguyen D. Busserolles J. Giraudet F. Cabrespine A. Chaleteix C. Soubrier M. Prevalence of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Multiple Myeloma Patients and Its Impact on Quality of Life: A Single Center Cross-Sectional Study Front. Pharmacol. 2021 12 637593 10.3389/fphar.2021.637593 33967771 PMC8101543
5. Loprinzi C.L. Lacchetti C. Bleeker J. Cavaletti G. Chauhan C. Hertz D.L. Kelley M.R. Lavino A. Lustberg M.B. Paice J.A. Prevention and Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Survivors of Adult Cancers: ASCO Guideline Update J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2020 38 3325 3348 10.1200/JCO.20.01399 32663120
6. Jordan B. Margulies A. Cardoso F. Cavaletti G. Haugnes H.S. Jahn P. Le Rhun E. Preusser M. Scotté F. Taphoorn M.J.B. Systemic Anticancer Therapy-Induced Peripheral and Central Neurotoxicity: ESMO-EONS-EANO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diagnosis, Prevention, Treatment and Follow-Up Ann. Oncol. Off. J. Eur. Soc. Med. Oncol. 2020 31 1306 1319 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.07.003 32739407
7. Dault R. Rousseau M.P. Beaudoin A. Frenette M.A. Lemay F. Beauchesne M.F. Impact of Oxaliplatin-Induced Neuropathy in Patients with Colorectal Cancer: A Prospective Evaluation at a Single Institution Curr. Oncol. Tor. Ont 2016 23 e65 e69 10.3747/co.23.2780 PMC4754071 26966415
8. Chibaudel B. Maindrault-Goebel F. Lledo G. Mineur L. André T. Bennamoun M. Mabro M. Artru P. Carola E. Flesch M. Can Chemotherapy Be Discontinued in Unresectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer? The GERCOR OPTIMOX2 Study J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2009 27 5727 5733 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.4344 19786657
9. Griffith K.A. Merkies I.S.J. Hill E.E. Cornblath D.R. Measures of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties J. Peripher. Nerv. Syst. JPNS 2010 15 314 325 10.1111/j.1529-8027.2010.00292.x 21199103
10. McCrary J.M. Goldstein D. Trinh T. Timmins H.C. Li T. Friedlander M. Bosco A. Harrison M. Maier N. O’Neill S. Optimizing Clinical Screening for Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2019 58 1023 1032 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.07.021 31374367
11. Meregalli C. Fumagalli G. Alberti P. Canta A. Chiorazzi A. Monza L. Pozzi E. Carozzi V.A. Blennow K. Zetterberg H. Neurofilament Light Chain: A Specific Serum Biomarker of Axonal Damage Severity in Rat Models of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neurotoxicity Arch. Toxicol. 2020 94 2517 2522 10.1007/s00204-020-02755-w 32333051
12. Balayssac D. Busserolles J. Broto C. Dalbos C. Prival L. Lamoine S. Richard D. Quintana M. Herbet A. Hilairet S. Neurofilament Light Chain in Plasma as a Sensitive Diagnostic Biomarker of Peripheral Neurotoxicity: In Vivo Mouse Studies with Oxaliplatin and Paclitaxel—NeuroDeRisk Project Biomed. Pharmacother. Biomedecine Pharmacother. 2023 167 115535 10.1016/j.biopha.2023.115535 37738793
13. Burgess B.L. Cho E. Honigberg L. Neurofilament Light as a Predictive Biomarker of Unresolved Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Subjects Receiving Paclitaxel and Carboplatin Sci. Rep. 2022 12 15593 10.1038/s41598-022-18716-5 36114333 PMC9481642
14. Kim S.-H. Choi M.K. Park N.Y. Hyun J.-W. Lee M.Y. Kim H.J. Jung S.K. Cha Y. Serum Neurofilament Light Chain Levels as a Biomarker of Neuroaxonal Injury and Severity of Oxaliplatin-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Sci. Rep. 2020 10 7995 10.1038/s41598-020-64511-5 32409710 PMC7224372
15. Was H. Borkowska A. Bagues A. Tu L. Liu J.Y.H. Lu Z. Rudd J.A. Nurgali K. Abalo R. Mechanisms of Chemotherapy-Induced Neurotoxicity Front. Pharmacol. 2022 13 750507 10.3389/fphar.2022.750507 35418856 PMC8996259
16. Attal N. Bouhassira D. Gautron M. Vaillant J.N. Mitry E. Lepère C. Rougier P. Guirimand F. Thermal Hyperalgesia as a Marker of Oxaliplatin Neurotoxicity: A Prospective Quantified Sensory Assessment Study Pain 2009 144 245 252 10.1016/j.pain.2009.03.024 19457614
17. Boyette-Davis J.A. Cata J.P. Zhang H. Driver L.C. Wendelschafer-Crabb G. Kennedy W.R. Dougherty P.M. Follow-up Psychophysical Studies in Bortezomib-Related Chemoneuropathy Patients J. Pain 2011 12 1017 1024 10.1016/j.jpain.2011.04.008 21703938 PMC3164390
18. Tutelman P.R. Chambers C.T. Cornelissen L. Fernandez C.V. Flanders A. MacLeod J. Sherry S.B. Stewart S.H. Urquhart R. De Gagne S. Long-Term Alterations in Somatosensory Functioning in Survivors of Childhood Cancer Pain 2022 163 1193 1205 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002486 34855647 PMC9100454
19. Notturno F. Capasso M. DeLauretis A. Carpo M. Uncini A. Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein as a Marker of Axonal Damage in Chronic Neuropathies Muscle Nerve 2009 40 50 54 10.1002/mus.21323 19533665
20. Pizzamiglio C. Ripellino P. Prandi P. Clemente N. Saggia C. Rossi V. Strigaro G. Luigi Foglio Bonda P. Comi C. Cantello R. Nerve Conduction, Circulating Osteopontin and Taxane-Induced Neuropathy in Breast Cancer Patients Neurophysiol. Clin. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2020 50 47 54 10.1016/j.neucli.2019.12.001 31928832
21. Velasco R. Navarro X. Gil-Gil M. Herrando-Grabulosa M. Calls A. Bruna J. Neuropathic Pain and Nerve Growth Factor in Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: Prospective Clinical-Pathological Study J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2017 54 815 825 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2017.04.021 28797868
22. Brandolini L. d’Angelo M. Antonosante A. Cimini A. Allegretti M. Chemokine Signaling in Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathic Pain Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019 20 2904 10.3390/ijms20122904 31197114 PMC6627296
23. Fumagalli G. Monza L. Cavaletti G. Rigolio R. Meregalli C. Neuroinflammatory Process Involved in Different Preclinical Models of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Front. Immunol. 2021 11 626687 10.3389/fimmu.2020.626687 33613570 PMC7890072
24. Authier N. Balayssac D. Marchand F. Ling B. Zangarelli A. Descoeur J. Coudore F. Bourinet E. Eschalier A. Animal Models of Chemotherapy-Evoked Painful Peripheral Neuropathies Neurother. J. Am. Soc. Exp. Neurother. 2009 6 620 629 10.1016/j.nurt.2009.07.003 19789067 PMC5084284
25. Kilkenny C. Browne W.J. Cuthill I.C. Emerson M. Altman D.G. Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research J. Pharmacol. Pharmacother. 2010 1 94 99 10.4103/0976-500X.72351 21350617 PMC3043335
26. Ling B. Authier N. Balayssac D. Eschalier A. Coudore F. Behavioral and Pharmacological Description of Oxaliplatin-Induced Painful Neuropathy in Rat Pain 2007 128 225 234 10.1016/j.pain.2006.09.016 17084975
27. Flatters S.J.L. Bennett G.J. Ethosuximide Reverses Paclitaxel- and Vincristine-Induced Painful Peripheral Neuropathy Pain 2004 109 150 161 10.1016/j.pain.2004.01.029 15082137
28. Yamamoto S. Kawashiri T. Higuchi H. Tsutsumi K. Ushio S. Kaname T. Shirahama M. Egashira N. Behavioral and Pharmacological Characteristics of Bortezomib-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Rats J. Pharmacol. Sci. 2015 129 43 50 10.1016/j.jphs.2015.08.006 26362518
29. Authier N. Gillet J.-P. Fialip J. Eschalier A. Coudore F. A New Animal Model of Vincristine-Induced Nociceptive Peripheral Neuropathy Neurotoxicology 2003 24 797 805 10.1016/S0161-813X(03)00043-3 14637374
30. Ferrier J. Marchand F. Balayssac D. Assessment of Mechanical Allodynia in Rats Using the Electronic Von Frey Test BIO-Protoc. 2016 6 e1933 10.21769/BioProtoc.1933
31. Selvy M. Mattévi C. Dalbos C. Aissouni Y. Chapuy E. Martin P.-Y. Collin A. Richard D. Dumontet C. Busserolles J. Analgesic and Preventive Effects of Donepezil in Animal Models of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: Involvement of Spinal Muscarinic Acetylcholine M2 Receptors Biomed. Pharmacother. 2022 149 112915 10.1016/j.biopha.2022.112915 35635358
32. Ferrier J. Bayet-Robert M. Dalmann R. Guerrab A.E. Aissouni Y. Graveron-Demilly D. Chalus M. Pinguet J. Eschalier A. Richard D. Cholinergic Neurotransmission in the Posterior Insular Cortex Is Altered in Preclinical Models of Neuropathic Pain: Key Role of Muscarinic M2 Receptors in Donepezil-Induced Antinociception J. Neurosci. 2015 35 16418 16430 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1537-15.2015 26674867 PMC4679823
33. Keizer R.J. Jansen R.S. Rosing H. Thijssen B. Beijnen J.H. Schellens J.H.M. Huitema A.D.R. Incorporation of Concentration Data below the Limit of Quantification in Population Pharmacokinetic Analyses Pharmacol. Res. Perspect. 2015 3 e00131 10.1002/prp2.131 26038706 PMC4448983
34. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2nd ed. Hillsdale N.J. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah, NJ, USA 1988 978-0-8058-0283-2
35. Gadgil S. Ergün M. van den Heuvel S.A. van der Wal S.E. Scheffer G.J. Hooijmans C.R. A Systematic Summary and Comparison of Animal Models for Chemotherapy Induced (Peripheral) Neuropathy (CIPN) PLoS ONE 2019 14 e0221787 10.1371/journal.pone.0221787 31461480 PMC6713358
36. Gordon B.A. Neurofilaments in Disease: What Do We Know? Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2020 61 105 115 10.1016/j.conb.2020.02.001 32151970 PMC7198337
37. Meregalli C. Fumagalli G. Alberti P. Canta A. Carozzi V.A. Chiorazzi A. Monza L. Pozzi E. Sandelius Å. Blennow K. Neurofilament Light Chain as Disease Biomarker in a Rodent Model of Chemotherapy Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Exp. Neurol. 2018 307 129 132 10.1016/j.expneurol.2018.06.005 29908147
38. Lucarini E. Micheli L. Rajagopalan R. Ciampi C. Branca J.J.V. Pacini A. Leandri M. Rajagopalan P. Ghelardini C. Di Cesare Mannelli L. Broad-Spectrum Neuroprotection Exerted by DDD-028 in a Mouse Model of Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathy Pain 2023 164 2581 2595 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002963 37556385 PMC10578426
39. Huehnchen P. Schinke C. Bangemann N. Dordevic A.D. Kern J. Maierhof S.K. Hew L. Nolte L. Körtvelyessy P. Göpfert J.C. Neurofilament Proteins as a Potential Biomarker in Chemotherapy-Induced Polyneuropathy JCI Insight 2022 7 e154395 10.1172/jci.insight.154395 35133982 PMC8986065
40. Karteri S. Bruna J. Argyriou A.A. Mariotto S. Velasco R. Alemany M. Kalofonou F. Alberti P. Dinoto A. Velissaris D. Prospectively Assessing Serum Neurofilament Light Chain Levels as a Biomarker of Paclitaxel-Induced Peripheral Neurotoxicity in Breast Cancer Patients J. Peripher. Nerv. Syst. JPNS 2022 27 166 174 10.1111/jns.12493 35384143
41. Kim S.-H. Kim K.H. Hyun J.-W. Kim J.H. Seo S.-S. Kim H.J. Park S.-Y. Lim M.C. Blood Neurofilament Light Chain as a Biomarker for Monitoring and Predicting Paclitaxel-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Patients with Gynecological Cancers Front. Oncol. 2022 12 942960 10.3389/fonc.2022.942960 36059704 PMC9428708
42. Mortensen C. Steffensen K.D. Simonsen E. Herskind K. Madsen J.S. Olsen D.A. Iversen D.B. Bergmann T.K. Pottegård A. Stage T.B. Neurofilament Light Chain as a Biomarker of Axonal Damage in Sensory Neurons and Paclitaxel-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Patients with Ovarian Cancer Pain 2022 164 1502 1511 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002840 36508173
43. Velasco R. Argyriou A.A. Marco C. Mariotto S. Stradella A. Hernández J. Pernas S. Ferrari S. Bruna J. Serum Neurofilament Levels Correlate with Electrodiagnostic Evidence of Axonal Loss in Paclitaxel-Induced Peripheral Neurotoxicity J. Neurol. 2023 270 531 537 10.1007/s00415-022-11377-4 36094631
44. Cebulla N. Schirmer D. Runau E. Flamm L. Gommersbach S. Stengel H. Zhou X. Einsele H. Reinhold A.-K. Rogalla von Bieberstein B. Neurofilament Light Chain Levels Indicate Acute Axonal Damage under Bortezomib Treatment J. Neurol. 2023 270 2997 3007 10.1007/s00415-023-11624-2 36802032 PMC10188420
45. Chen Y. Wang Y. Xu J. Hou T. Zhu J. Jiang Y. Sun L. Huang C. Sun L. Liu S. Multiplex Assessment of Serum Chemokines CCL2, CCL5, CXCL1, CXCL10, and CXCL13 Following Traumatic Brain Injury Inflammation 2023 46 244 255 10.1007/s10753-022-01729-7 35969281
46. Singh S. Anshita D. Ravichandiran V. MCP-1: Function, Regulation, and Involvement in Disease Int. Immunopharmacol. 2021 101 107598 10.1016/j.intimp.2021.107598 34233864 PMC8135227
47. Ang D.C. Moore M.N. Hilligoss J. Tabbey R. MCP-1 and IL-8 as Pain Biomarkers in Fibromyalgia: A Pilot Study Pain Med. Malden Mass 2011 12 1154 1161 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01179.x 21714842
48. García-Fernández P. Höfflin K. Rausch A. Strommer K. Neumann A. Cebulla N. Reinhold A.-K. Rittner H. Üçeyler N. Sommer C. Systemic Inflammatory Markers in Patients with Polyneuropathies Front. Immunol. 2023 14 1067714 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1067714 36860843 PMC9969086
49. Appay V. Rowland-Jones S.L. RANTES: A Versatile and Controversial Chemokine Trends Immunol. 2001 22 83 87 10.1016/S1471-4906(00)01812-3 11286708
50. Lakritz J.R. Robinson J.A. Polydefkis M.J. Miller A.D. Burdo T.H. Loss of Intraepidermal Nerve Fiber Density during SIV Peripheral Neuropathy Is Mediated by Monocyte Activation and Elevated Monocyte Chemotactic Proteins J. Neuroinflamm. 2015 12 237 10.1186/s12974-015-0456-8 PMC4683776 26683323
51. Liu T.-W. Chen C.-M. Chang K.-H. Biomarker of Neuroinflammation in Parkinson’s Disease Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022 23 4148 10.3390/ijms23084148 35456966 PMC9028544
52. Geisler S. Vincristine- and Bortezomib-Induced Neuropathies—From Bedside to Bench and Back Exp. Neurol. 2021 336 113519 10.1016/j.expneurol.2020.113519 33129841 PMC11160556
53. Starobova H. Vetter I. Pathophysiology of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Front. Mol. Neurosci. 2017 10 174 10.3389/fnmol.2017.00174 28620280 PMC5450696
54. Pollard K.J. Bolon B. Moore M.J. Comparative Analysis of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Bioengineered Sensory Nerve Tissue Distinguishes Mechanistic Differences in Early-Stage Vincristine-, Cisplatin-, and Paclitaxel-Induced Nerve Damage Toxicol. Sci. Off. J. Soc. Toxicol. 2021 180 76 88 10.1093/toxsci/kfaa186 PMC7916732 33410881
55. Sun W. Hao Y. Li R. Hiu Ting Ho I. Wu S. Li N. Ba X. Wang J. Xiong D. Jiang C. Comparative Transcriptome of Dorsal Root Ganglia Reveals Distinct Etiologies of Paclitaxel- and Oxaliplatin-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Rats Neuroscience 2023 516 1 14 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2023.02.007 36822350
56. Pachman D.R. Qin R. Seisler D. Smith E.M.L. Kaggal S. Novotny P. Ruddy K.J. Lafky J.M. Ta L.E. Beutler A.S. Comparison of Oxaliplatin and Paclitaxel-Induced Neuropathy (Alliance A151505) Support. Care Cancer Off. J. Multinatl. Assoc. Support. Care Cancer 2016 24 5059 5068 10.1007/s00520-016-3373-1 27534963 PMC5439148
57. Authier N. Gillet J.P. Fialip J. Eschalier A. Coudore F. Assessment of Neurotoxicity Following Repeated Cremophor/Ethanol Injections in Rats Neurotox. Res. 2001 3 301 306 10.1007/BF03033269 15111255
58. Kerckhove N. Selvy M. Lambert C. Gonneau C. Feydel G. Pétorin C. Vimal-Baguet A. Melnikov S. Kullab S. Hebbar M. Colorectal Cancer Survivors Suffering From Sensory Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Are Not a Homogenous Group: Secondary Analysis of Patients’ Profiles with Oxaliplatin-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Front. Pharmacol. 2021 12 744085 10.3389/fphar.2021.744085 34803689 PMC8599933
59. Turner P.V. Pang D.S. Lofgren J.L. A Review of Pain Assessment Methods in Laboratory Rodents Comp. Med. 2019 69 451 467 10.30802/AALAS-CM-19-000042 31896391 PMC6935698
60. Marmiroli P. Nicolini G. Miloso M. Scuteri A. Cavaletti G. The Fundamental Role of Morphology in Experimental Neurotoxicology: The Example of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neurotoxicity Ital. J. Anat. Embryol. Arch. Ital. Anat. Ed Embriologia 2012 117 75 97 23420996
61. Boehmerle W. Huehnchen P. Peruzzaro S. Balkaya M. Endres M. Electrophysiological, Behavioral and Histological Characterization of Paclitaxel, Cisplatin, Vincristine and Bortezomib-Induced Neuropathy in C57Bl/6 Mice Sci. Rep. 2014 4 6370 10.1038/srep06370 25231679 PMC5377307
62. Selvy M. Pereira B. Kerckhove N. Busserolles J. Farsi F. Guastella V. Merle P. Pezet D. Balayssac D. Prevention, Diagnosis and Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Cross-Sectional Study of French Oncologists’ Professional Practices Support. Care Cancer Off. J. Multinatl. Assoc. Support. Care Cancer 2021 29 4033 4043 10.1007/s00520-020-05928-6 33403401
63. Sardo S. Varrassi G. Scartozzi M. Pace M.C. Schweiger V. Tamburin S. Musu M. Finco G. Exploring Outcome Priorities and Real-Life Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neurotoxicity: A Survey of the Italian Association for the Study of Pain Members J. Pain Res. 2023 16 3227 3238 10.2147/JPR.S414389 37790191 PMC10542526
64. Cavaletti G. Pizzamiglio C. Man A. Engber T.M. Comi C. Wilbraham D. Studies to Assess the Utility of Serum Neurofilament Light Chain as a Biomarker in Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Cancers 2023 15 4216 10.3390/cancers15174216 37686492 PMC10486738
65. Mizrahi D. Park S.B. Li T. Timmins H.C. Trinh T. Au K. Battaglini E. Wyld D. Henderson R.D. Grimison P. Hemoglobin, Body Mass Index, and Age as Risk Factors for Paclitaxel- and Oxaliplatin-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy JAMA Netw. Open 2021 4 e2036695 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.36695 33587134 PMC7885037
66. Warncke U.O. Toma W. Meade J.A. Park A.J. Thompson D.C. Caillaud M. Bigbee J.W. Bryant C.D. Damaj M.I. Impact of Dose, Sex, and Strain on Oxaliplatin-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Mice Front. Pain Res. 2021 2 683168 10.3389/fpain.2021.683168 PMC8915759 35295533