Front. Neurol. Frontiers in Neurology Front. Neurol. 1664-2295 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fneur.2026.1653161 Brief Research Report Different types of electrostimulation target specific impaired sensory and motor functions in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a secondary analysis of a controlled trial Rieder Florian 1 * † Data curation Supervision Conceptualization Writing – original draft Investigation Writing – review & editing Sassmann Robert 1 Writing – review & editing Data curation Writing – original draft Conceptualization Supervision Investigation Funding acquisition Project administration Kienberger Yvonne Theres 1 Writing – original draft Conceptualization Writing – review & editing Castagnaviz Vanessa 2 3 4 Writing – review & editing Data curation Writing – original draft Methodology Schaffler-Schaden Dagmar 5 Supervision Conceptualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing Johansson Tim 6 Writing – review & editing Supervision Writing – original draft Conceptualization Rinnerthaler Gabriel 7 Conceptualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing Supervision Flamm Maria 5 Writing – original draft Conceptualization Supervision Writing – review & editing Greil Richard 2 3 4 Conceptualization Supervision Writing – review & editing Schulze Christoph 1 Writing – review & editing Supervision Writing – original draft Gampenrieder Simon Peter 2 3 4 Methodology Writing – review & editing Investigation Supervision Writing – original draft Conceptualization Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria IIIrd Medical Department with Haematology, Medical Oncology, Haemostaseology, Infectiology and Rheumatology, Oncologic Center, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria Salzburg Cancer Research Institute (SCRI) - Laboratory for Immunological and Molecular Cancer Research (LIMCR) and Center for Clinical Cancer and Immunology Trials (CCCIT), Salzburg, Austria Cancer Cluster Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria Institute of General Practice, Family Medicine and Preventive Medicine, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria Salzburg Regional Health Fund (SAGES), Salzburg, Austria Division of Clinical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria Correspondence: Florian Rieder, f.rieder@salk.at

ORCID: Florian Rieder, orcid.org/0000-0003-1452-3411

 04 03 2026 2026 17 1653161 24 06 2025 08 01 2026 09 02 2026 Copyright © 2026 Rieder, Sassmann, Kienberger, Castagnaviz, Schaffler-Schaden, Johansson, Rinnerthaler, Flamm, Greil, Schulze and Gampenrieder. 2026 Rieder, Sassmann, Kienberger, Castagnaviz, Schaffler-Schaden, Johansson, Rinnerthaler, Flamm, Greil, Schulze and Gampenrieder https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Background

We performed a secondary data analysis of a previously published study to investigate the effects of different electrical stimulation modalities on specific impaired sensory and motor functions.

 Methods

A total of 51 patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) ≥ grade 1 after receiving platinum- and/or taxane-based chemotherapy were randomized to 8 weeks of high-tone external muscle stimulation (HTEMS) or transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). A control group (n = 17) receiving no intervention was recruited retrospectively. Patients received 8 weeks of home-based electrotherapy for at least 5 days a week, for 30 min per day, using either a TENS or HTEMS device. In the original study, changes in the EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaire were measured before and after the intervention. For this secondary data analysis, we performed sub-analyses to examine the specific effects of TENS and HTEMS on the individual sensory and motor scale outcomes of the EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaire.

 Results

For sensory function categories, HTEMS significantly improved tingling in the fingers or hands (p = 0.009) and the numbness in the toes or feet (p = 0.018). TENS tended to reduce shooting or burning pain in the toes or feet (p = 0.051). TENS also demonstrated a trend to improve problems in standing or walking due to difficulties in feeling the ground (p = 0.051), while improvements after HTEMS reached significance (p = 0.045). For motor function categories, TENS improved difficulties opening a bottle due to weakness (p = 0.036), and HTEMS reduced difficulties in walking due to downward dropping of the feet (p = 0.015). There were no changes for any category in the control group.

 Conclusion

Electrotherapy is a useful tool for treating CIPN. A symptom-oriented selection of the stimulation modality may be promising.

 Clinical trial registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03978585

 CIPN electrotherapy HTEMS QLQ-CIPN20 TENS The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This study was funded by the Paracelsus Medical University PMU FFF with the grant number T-18/03/144-SAS. section-at-acceptance Neurorehabilitation Introduction

Cancer patients receiving neurotoxic chemotherapy often develop impaired sensory and motor functions, such as tingling, numbness, hypesthesia, and weakness in the hands, fingertips, feet, or toes (1). Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a serious side effect of anticancer therapies and is difficult to treat, as drugs and other conservative therapies often provide unsatisfying results (2). Although evidence is still limited, recent small randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that electrotherapy can effectively reduce CIPN symptoms to a clinically relevant extent (3, 4). High-tone external muscle stimulation (HTEMS) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) are the most frequently used methods (3–5). In a previously conducted randomized controlled trial (3), we were able to demonstrate that both electrical modalities increase impaired sensory and motor functions, as measured by the EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaire. Improvements in the global scores did not differ between HTEMS and TENS. However, symptoms experienced by CIPN patients are very heterogeneous, and it is not clear how the different stimulation methods affect different complaints. Therefore, the effect of HTEMS and TENS on the individual questions of the EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaire was explored in a secondary data analysis of our previously published study (3).

 Materials and methods

This is a secondary explorative data analysis of a previously published randomized controlled clinical trial comparing 8 weeks of home-based HTEMS or TENS therapy to a retrospectively recruited control group. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov1 and approved by the Ethics Committee of Salzburg County (ID 415-E/2376/7–2018). Reporting follows the CONSORT guidelines (see CONSORT checklist and study flow in the Supplementary material). A detailed description of the methods can be found in the studies by Sassmann and Gampenrieder (3) and Schaffler-Schaden and Sassmann (6).

Patients and treatment

Adult male and female patients who had completed chemotherapy with a taxane or platinum salt for confirmed invasive cancer (any entity) and had a clinical diagnosis of CIPN of ≥ grade 1 according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4 (CTCAE v 4) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score of 0–1 were randomized to either HTEMS or TENS therapy. Patient recruitment and randomization were conducted from September 2019 to October 2021. A control group (n = 17) was recruited retrospectively from July 2022 to March 2023 to better estimate the effects of electrotherapy. Patients randomized to the intervention performed 30 min of home-based electrotherapy daily, or at least 5 days a week, for 8 weeks on the feet and, if also affected, on the hands. Electrotherapy settings were set in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations for peripheral nerve pain. The exact intervention settings can be found in the Supplementary material. Patients in the control group did not receive any therapy for CIPN symptoms for a duration of 8 weeks but completed the EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaire before and after this period.

 Outcome measurements

All outcome measurements were performed before and after the 8 weeks of intervention. In the original study, the primary outcome parameters were changes in the EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaire; secondary outcomes were improvements in the patient’s quality of life (EORTC-QLQ-C30), the classification of CIPN grade, and clinician-reported outcomes, including vibration sensibility, Achilles and patellar tendon reflexes, temperature sensibility, perception of touch, and strength of the lower leg muscles.

The EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20 contains 20 items assessing sensory (9 items), motor (8 items), and autonomic symptoms (3 items), using a 4-point Likert scale. For this secondary explorative data analysis, the questions for the sensory and motor impairments were evaluated separately and compared between the groups. The category of autonomic scales, which is known to show low reliability and validity (7), was excluded from the analysis.

 Statistical analysis

Normal distribution of data was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Pre–post changes between the groups in the main categories of the EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaire were analyzed using a Kruskal–Wallis test for non-normally distributed data. If a significant effect was found, the Mann–Whitney U-tests were performed post-hoc with Bonferroni-corrected p-values. Pre–post changes in the individual questions for sensory and motor impairments were analyzed within the groups using a Wilcoxon matched pairs test with Bonferroni-corrected p-values. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0 (IBM, Ehningen, Germany). Figures were created using GraphPad Prism v.9 (GraphPad Software, Boston, United States).

 Results

A total of 51 patients were randomized to the TENS or HTEMS group. One patient in the HTEMS group died due to cancer during the study period and was not included in the analyses. Thus, 25 patients in the HTEMS group and 25 patients in the TENS group completed the EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaires before and after the 8 weeks of intervention. Overall, 17 patients in the retrospectively recruited control group completed this questionnaire twice. Baseline characteristics of the patients are presented in Table 1. There were no baseline differences between the groups in the EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20 scores. Examining the individual questions, the groups differed on the items ‘cramps in the hands’ (p = 0.003) and ‘cramps in the feet’ (p = 0.011), with higher mean rank values for the control group in both categories (tested using the Kruskal–Wallis test). Baseline characteristics are also reported in Sassmann et al. and in the Supplementary material.

Frequency of individual sensory and motor impairments and the successful electrotherapy device for each item.

Category Item Frequency (%): quite a bit + very much HTEMS TENS CON
Median (Minimum–Maximum) T0 Median (Minimum–Maximum) T1 p-value (Bonferroni-corrected) effect size (r) Median (Minimum–Maximum) T0 Median (Minimum–Maximum) T1 p-value (Bonferroni-corrected) effect size (r) Median (Minimum–Maximum) T0 Median (Minimum–Maximum) T1 p-value (Bonferroni-corrected) effect size (r)
S Did you have numbness in your toes or feet? 80.6 4 (1–4) 3 (1–4) 0.018 r = 0.389 4 (1–4) 3 (1–4) 0.855r = 0.151 3 (1–4) 3 (1–4) >1.0r = 0.631
S Did you have tingling toes or feet? 74.7 4(1–4) 3(1–4) 0.09r = 0.306 3(1–4) 3(1–4) 0.63r = 0.177 3(1–4) 3(1–4) >1r = 0.083
S Did you have tingling fingers or hands? 64.2 4 (1–4) 3 (1–4) 0.009 r = 0.417 3 (1–4) 3 (1–4) 0.117r = 0.292 3 (1–4) 3 (1–4) >1r = 0.000
S Did you have numbness in your fingers or hands? 59.7 3 (1–4) 2 (1–4) 0.435r = 0.206 3 (1–4) 3 (1–4) 0.192r = 0.262 3 (1–4) 2 (1–4) 0.288r = 0.286
M Did you have difficulty manipulating small objects with your fingers? 53.8 2 (1–4) 2 (1–4) >1r = 0.130 3 (1–4) 3 (1–4) 0.21r = 0.256 2 (1–4) 2 (1–4) >1r = 0.171
M Did you have difficulty opening a jar or a bottle because of weakness in your hands? 47.7 2 (1–4) 2 (1–4) 0.087r = 0.309 3 (1–4) 2 (1–4) 0.036 r = 0.353 2 (1–4) 2 (1–4) 0.177r = 0.324
S Did you have shooting or burning pain in your toes or feet? 43.3 1 (1–4) 1 (1–3) 0.09r = 0.307 3 (1–4) 1 (1–4) 0.051 r = 0.338 1 (1–4) 1 (1–3) >1r = 0.165
S Did you have problems standing or walking because of difficulty feeling the ground under your feet? 32.8 2 (1–4) 1 (1–4) 0.045 r = 0.344 2 (1–4) 1 (1–4) 0.051 r = 0.338 2 (1–4) 2 (1–4) >1r = 0.140
M Did you have difficulty climbing stairs or getting up out of a chair because of weakness in your legs? 26.8 1 (1–4) 1 (1–4) >1r = 0.098 2 (1–4) 2 (1–4) 0.396r = 0.213 2 (1–4) 2 (1–3) >1r = 0.052
S Did you have shooting or burning pain in your fingers or hands? 25.4 1 (1–4) 1 (1–4) 0.489r = 0.197 1 (1–4) 1 (1–4) 0.102r = 0.300 1 (1–3) 1 (1–3) 0.702r = 0.204
M Did you have a problem holding a pen, which made writing difficult? 22.4 1 (1–4) 1 (1–4) 0.471r = 0.200 2 (1–4) 1 (1–4) 0.174r = 0.268 1 (1–4) 1 (1–4) 0.951r = 0.171
S Did you have difficulty distinguishing between hot and cold water? 17.9 1 (1–4) 1 (1–4) 0.06r = 0.330 1 (1–4) 1 (1–4) >1r = 0.106 1 (1–3) 1 (1–3) >1r = 0.000
M Did you have cramps in your feet? 16.5 1 (1–4) 1 (1–2) 0.891r = 0.148 1 (1–4) 1 (1–4) 0.663r = 0.173 2 (1–4) 2 (1–3) >1r = 0.077
M Did you have difficulty walking because your feet dropped downward? 12 1 (1–4) 1 (1–3) 0.015 r = 0.397 1 (1–4) 1 (1–2) >1r = 0.115 1 (1–3) 1 (1–2) >1r = 0.000
S Did you have difficulty hearing? 9 1 (1–4) 1 (1–4) 0.618r = 0.179 1 (1–3) 1 (1–3) 0.771r = 0.160 1 (1–4) 1 (1–3) >1r = 0.000
M Did you have cramps in your hands? 4.5 1 (1–2) 1 (1–2) >1r = 0.000 1 (1–2) 1 (1–2) 0.540r = 0.190 1 (1–4) 1 (1–3) >1r = 0.121

M = question in the motor scale, S = question in the sensory scale, 1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = quite a bit, 4 = very much, the frequency reflects the number of patients who answered “quite a bit” and “very much” in the questionnaire. HTEMS, high-tone external muscle stimulation; TENS, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation; CON, control group, bold letters = electrical intervention led to a significant reduction of symptom severity, T0 = baseline, T1 = follow-up, effect size (r): 0.00–0.300 = small; 0.301–0.500 = moderate; > 0.500 = large; calculated as Z value / n .

Overall scores for the sensory and motor impairment scales decreased significantly in the HTEMS (sensory: from 45.0 ± 21.2 to 32.7 ± 15.4, p < 0.001; motor: from 32.4 ± 18.2 to 24.2 ± 15.7, p = 0.045) and TENS groups (sensory: from 47.3 ± 17.5 to 32.6 ± 17.7, p = 0.018; motor: from 25.9 ± 20.6 to 17.7 ± 17.3, p = 0.036) but not in the control group (sensory: from 36.4 ± 21.7 to 33.2 ± 22.4, p = 0.882; motor: from 29.4 ± 22.7 to 26.6 ± 24.7, p = 0.079). There were no baseline differences between the groups.

Looking at the individual questions for sensory impairments, HTEMS improved tingling in the fingers or hands (p = 0.009) and the numbness in the toes or feet (p = 0.018; Figure 1; Table 1). Tingling of the feet or toes also decreased after HTEMS but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.09). HTEMS also improved patients’ ability to stand or walk without problems related to impaired sensation (p = 0.045), whereas TENS only showed a trend toward improvement (p = 0.051; Figure 1; Table 1). TENS also showed a trend toward reducing shooting or burning pain in the toes or feet (p = 0.051). For motor function questions, TENS improved difficulties opening a bottle due to weakness (p = 0.036), while HTEMS reduced difficulties in walking caused by the downward dropping of the feet (p = 0.015). No changes were observed for the other questions (Figure 1; Table 1), and the control group showed no significant changes for any question. All reported p-values were Bonferroni-corrected.

Symptom reduction after electrotherapy in items of the EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaire, 1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = quite a bit, 4 = very much. TENS, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation; HTEMS, high-tone external muscle stimulation; CON, control group; *significant differences p < 0.05, **significant differences p < 0.01, data are presented as boxplots (median, minimum, and maximum).

Six grouped box plots compare T0 and T1 scores for TENS, HTEMS, and CON groups across six symptoms: tingling fingers/hands (significant improvement in TENS, p < 0.01), shooting/burning pain toes/feet, numbness toes/feet (significant in HTEMS, p < 0.05), problems standing/walking (HTEMS trending towards significance, TENS significant, p < 0.05), difficulties in walking due to dropped feet (HTEMS significant, p < 0.05), and difficulties opening a jar/bottle (TENS significant, p < 0.05). Groups are visually distinguished by box fill. Discussion

The improvements observed in impaired sensory and motor functions after electrotherapy, measured globally using the EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaire, were clinically meaningful with no significant differences between the two techniques. This is a step forward in the treatment of CIPN since previous strategies were less successful (2, 8, 9). Additionally, TENS and HTEMS treatments can be easily performed alone at home and show no relevant side effects (3).

However, individual sensory and motor problems that affect patients during activities of daily living can be highly heterogeneous and may not be sufficiently represented by a global score. In our population, the most frequently reported problems, consistent with previous studies (10, 11), were tingling and numbness in the toes or feet and in the hands or fingers, difficulty opening a bottle due to weakness in the hands, and shooting or burning pain in the toes or feet. After 8 weeks of electrotherapy, our results showed improvements in the majority of these items, although the magnitude of improvement varied depending on the stimulation modality. HTEMS appeared to especially target tingling and burning sensations, whereas TENS mainly reduces pain. For impairments in walking or performing tasks such as opening objects, the results were less clear. It is possible that both numbness and pain in the feet impair standing and walking, and alleviating even one of these symptoms could lead to improvements in this category.

Limitations

When interpreting the results of this study, some limitations should be considered. The retrospective nature of the control group is a major limitation of our study. The allocation of patients to this group was not randomized and was carried out 7 months after the end of the original study. Selection biases and time-related confounding factors (e.g., changes in chemotherapy regimens) may have influenced the results. Furthermore, despite the significant improvements in the individual items of the EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaire, it is not known whether these are clinically relevant, as no values for minimally clinically relevant changes for these items have yet been established. In addition, a priori sample size calculation was only performed for the global EORTC-QLQ-CIPN 20 scores. The individual item analyses can therefore be slightly underpowered. Finally, the small sample size of this study did not allow us to investigate the influence of covariables such as sex, age, and BMI on the outcomes of TENS or HTEMS therapy, nor were comorbidities systematically recorded. Therefore, future multicenter studies using a large sample size are needed to answer these questions.

 Conclusion

Electrotherapy appears to be an effective tool for alleviating impaired sensory and motor functions in CIPN patients. Furthermore, this secondary exploratory data analysis suggests that HTEMS specifically targets tingling and burning sensations, while TENS appears to primarily relieve pain. However, this needs to be confirmed by further well-powered clinical studies before practicing physicians can prescribe symptom-oriented electrotherapy.

 Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

 Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by the Ethics Committee of Salzburg County (Approval number: 415-E/2376/7-2018). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

 Author contributions

FR: Data curation, Supervision, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. RS: Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Supervision, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Project administration. YK: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. VC: Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Methodology. DS-S: Supervision, Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. TJ: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. GR: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. MF: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. RG: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. CS: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Writing – original draft. SG: Methodology, Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization.

 Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Paracelsus Medical University for financially supporting this study and the involved oncology physicians and nurses.

 Conflict of interest

SG receives honoraria from MSD, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Seagen Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH and Gilead Sciences and has a consulting role for these companies and Stemline Therapeutics. The institution of SG receives funding (for projects not related to this paper) and travel expenses from Roche, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Novartis, Pfizer, Caris Life Sciences, Eli Lilly, Seagen, Gilead Sciences, Janssen and AstraZeneca. GR receives honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo GmBH, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, MSD, Novartis, Seagen, Stemline Therapeutics, Roche and BMS and has a consulting role for these companies and Pfizer. RG holds a stock in Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly and receives honoraria from Celgene, Roche, Merck, Takeda, AstraZeneca Novartis, Amgen, BMS, MSD, Sandoz and Abbvie. He also is consultant for Celgene, Novartis, Roche, BMS, Takeda, Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, Janssen, MSD and Amgen and expert testimony for Roche, Amgen, Janssen, Astra Zeneca Novartis, MSD, Celgene, Gilead Sciences and BMS. RG receives funding for projects not related to this paper from Celgene, Roche, Merck, Takeda, AstraZeneca Novartis, Amgen, BMS, MSD, Sandoz and Abbvie.

The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

 Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

 Supplementary material

The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2026.1653161/full#supplementary-material

 References BanachM JuranekJK ZygulskaAL. Chemotherapy-induced neuropathies-a growing problem for patients and health care providers. Brain Behav. (2017) 7:e00558. doi: 10.1002/brb3.558 HershmanDL LacchettiC DworkinRH Lavoie SmithEM BleekerJ CavalettiG . Prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in survivors of adult cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. (2014) 32:1941–67. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.0914, 24733808 SassmannR GampenriederSP RiederF JohanssonT RinnerthalerG CastagnavizV . Electrotherapy as treatment for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy - a randomized controlled trial. Front Neurol. (2024) 15:1451456. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1451456, 39777312 Wakolbinger-HabelR ReinweberM AlakraaM RienerI ScheffoldBE RaczK . Home-based high tone therapy may alleviate chemotherapy-induced neuropathic symptoms in patients with colorectal cancer: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled pilot evaluation. Support Care Cancer. (2024) 32:134. doi: 10.1007/s00520-024-08331-7, 38280118 GewandterJS ChaudariJ IbegbuC KittR ServentiJ BurkeJ . Wireless transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation device for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: an open-label feasibility study. Support Care Cancer. (2019) 27:1765. doi: 10.1007/s00520-018-4424-6, 30151681 Schaffler-SchadenD SassmannR JohanssonT GampenriederSP RinnerthalerG LamplK . Comparison of high tone therapy and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation therapy in chemotherapy-induced polyneuropathy. Medicine (Baltimore). (2020) 99:e20149. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000020149, 32384502 Lavoie SmithEM BartonDL QinR SteenPD AaronsonNK LoprinziCL. Assessing patient-reported peripheral neuropathy: the reliability and validity of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaire. Qual Life Res. (2013) 22:2787–99. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0379-8, 23543373 HwangMS LeeHY ChoiTY LeeJH KoYS JoDC . A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of acupuncture and electroacupuncture against chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Medicine (Baltimore). (2020) 99:e19837. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019837, 32332632 JordanB JahnF SauerS JordanK. Prevention and Management of Chemotherapy-Induced Polyneuropathy. Breast Care (Basel). (2019) 14:79–84. doi: 10.1159/000499599, 31798378 BonhofCS van de Poll-FranseLV WasowiczDK BeerepootLV VreugdenhilG MolsF. The course of peripheral neuropathy and its association with health-related quality of life among colorectal cancer patients. J Cancer Surviv. (2021) 15:190–200. doi: 10.1007/s11764-020-00923-6, 33185839 SelvyM PereiraB KerckhoveN GonneauC FeydelG PetorinC . 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) 9:1–14. doi: 10.3390/jcm9082400, 32727095

Edited by: Jie Hao, University of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, China

Reviewed by: Simge Unay, Uşak University, Türkiye

Robert Wakolbinger-Habel, Klinik Donaustadt, Austria

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03978585