Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is one of the most frequent side effects caused by antineoplastic agents, with a prevalence from 19% to over 85%. Clinically, CIPN is a mostly sensory neuropathy that may be accompanied by motor and autonomic changes of varying intensity and duration. Due to its high prevalence among cancer patients, CIPN constitutes a major problem for both cancer patients and survivors as well as for their health care providers, especially because, at the moment, there is no single effective method of preventing CIPN; moreover, the possibilities of treating this syndrome are very limited. There are six main substance groups that cause damage to peripheral sensory, motor and autonomic neurons, which result in the development of CIPN: platinum-based antineoplastic agents, vinca alkaloids, epothilones (ixabepilone), taxanes, proteasome inhibitors (bortezomib) and immunomodulatory drugs (thalidomide). Among them, the most neurotoxic are platinum-based agents, taxanes, ixabepilone and thalidomide; other less neurotoxic but also commonly used drugs are bortezomib and vinca alkaloids. This paper reviews the clinical picture of CIPN and the neurotoxicity mechanisms of the most common antineoplastic agents. A better understanding of the risk factors and underlying mechanisms of CIPN is needed to develop effective preventive and therapeutic strategies.

Opioids comprise an important group of drugs used in cancer pain pharmacotherapy. In recent years, more and more studies have emerged indicating the potentially immunosuppressive effects of opioid analgesics and their serious consequences, including the risk of cancer progression. The identification of these risks has prompted a search for other effective, and most importantly, safer methods of perioperative analgesic management. Regional analgesia techniques, which allow for a significant reduction in opioid dosing and thus diminish the risk of immunosuppression associated with these drugs, seem to offer substantial hope in this respect. A number of studies available in the literature assess the effects of regional analgesia techniques on cancer progression; however, it is often difficult to interpret their results owing to several perioperative factors (such as surgical trauma, inadequate pain and stress relief, and hypothermia) which are also attributed immunosuppressive effects and tend to be implicated in increased risk of cancer progression. Further research is needed to verify the available data on both the potential adverse effects of opioids and the possible protective effects of regional analgesia techniques on cancer patients.

Background: Appropriate fluid management is essential in the treatment of critically ill trauma patients. Both insufficient and excessive fluid volume can be associated with worse outcomes. Intensive fluid resuscitation is a crucial element of early resuscitation in trauma; however, excessive fluid infusion may lead to fluid accumulation and consequent complications such as pulmonary edema, cardiac failure, impaired bowel function, and delayed wound healing. The aim of this study was to examine the volumes of fluids infused in critically ill trauma patients during the first hours and days of treatment and their relationship to survival and outcomes.Methods: We retrospectively screened records of all consecutive patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) from the beginning of 2019 to the end of 2020. All adults who were admitted to ICU after trauma and were hospitalized for a minimum of 2 days were included in the study. We used multivariate regression analysis models to assess a relationship between volume of infused fluid or fluid balance, age, ISS or APACHE II score, and mortality. We also compared volumes of fluids in survivors and non-survivors including additional analyses in subgroups depending on disease severity (ISS score, APACHE II score), blood loss, and age.Results: A total of 52 patients met the inclusion criteria for the study. The volume of infused fluids and fluid balance were positively correlated with mortality, complication rate, time on mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the ICU, INR, and APTT. Fluid volumes were significantly higher in non-survivors than in survivors at the end of the second day of ICU stay (2.77 vs. 2.14 ml/kg/h) and non-survivors had a highly positive fluid balance (6.21 compared with 2.48 L in survivors).Conclusion: In critically ill trauma patients, worse outcomes were associated with higher volumes of infusion fluids and a more positive fluid balance. Although fluid resuscitation is lifesaving, especially in the first hours after trauma, fluid infusion should be limited to a necessary minimum to avoid fluid overload and its negative consequences.