Incidence, risk and prognostic role of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor-induced skin rash in biliary cancer: a meta-analysis

An Analysis of Risk Factors for the Development of Acneiform Eruptions in Patients on Monoclonal Antibody Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors

Acneiform eruptions occur frequently and early in patients on epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRi). Identification of baseline patient risk factors would prompt earlier referral to dermatology to optimize prevention and management. The primary objective of this retrospective study is to determine the association between clinical and demographic characteristics and the development of acneiform eruptions. A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients diagnosed with colon and head and neck cancers who started EGFRi between January 2017 and December 2021. Patients were followed until death or September 2022. Baseline demographic and clinical parameters were documented and patients were followed from the time of diagnosis to most recent visit for the development and management of an acneiform eruption. Regression analyses were performed to determine the association between baseline characteristics and the development of acneiform eruptions. A total of 66 patients were treated with cetuximab or panitumumab between 2017-2021 were included in the analysis. Forty-seven of the sixty-six patients developed an acneiform eruption while on EGFRi therapy (71.2%). Combination cancer therapy with another chemotherapeutic agent was associated with a lower risk of acneiform eruption (OR 0.03, P = .027). No other baseline features were statistically associated with a lower risk of acneiform eruption. Acneiform eruptions are a common cutaneous adverse event of EGFRi therapy. Ongoing research is required to elucidate risk factors for the development of acneiform eruptions, to improve the quality of life of oncology patients.

The Clinical Impact of Methylated Homeobox A9 ctDNA in Patients with Non-Resectable Biliary Tract Cancer Treated with Erlotinib and Bevacizumab

Methylated homeobox A9 (meth-HOXA9) is tumor specific and has been suggested as a prognostic biomarker in several types of cancer. ctDNA measured as meth-HOXA9 may be a valuable biomarker in the decision-making process about last-line treatment of biliary tract cancer (BTC). The aim of the study was to investigate the clinical impact of meth-HOXA9 in plasma from patients receiving erlotinib and bevacizumab for late-stage BTC and to investigate the treatment effect and adverse events. Droplet digital PCR was applied to detect meth-HOXA9 in 39 patients. Response rates were registered according to RECIST (1.1) and adverse events according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 4.0 (CTCAE (4.0)). Endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), response rate, and toxicity. A significant difference in PFS and OS between patients with increasing and non-increasing meth-HOXA9 was detected after one treatment cycle, hazard ratio (HR) 12.4 (p < 0.0001) and HR 2.75 (p = 0.04), respectively. The most common adverse events of erlotinib were fatigue, pain, and rash, and those of bevacizumab were bleeding and wounds. This study found meth-HOXA9 to be negatively associated with survival in patients with late-stage BTC. Hence, meth-HOXA9 may guide early discontinuation of ineffective treatment.

Intraosseous Morphine Decreases Postoperative Pain and Pain Medication Use in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Intraosseous (IO) infusion of medication is a novel technique for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) antibiotic prophylaxis. To decrease postoperative pain in TKA patients, we investigated addition of morphine to a standard IO antibiotic injection.

METHODS

A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was performed on 48 (24 each) consecutive patients undergoing primary TKA. The control group received an IO injection of antibiotics as per the standard protocol. The experimental group received an IO antibiotic injection with 10 mg of morphine. Pain, nausea, and opioid use were assessed up to 14 days postoperatively. Morphine and interleukin-6 serum levels were obtained 10 hours postoperatively in a subgroup of 20 patients.

RESULTS

The experimental group had lower Visual Analog Scale pain score at 1, 2, 3, and 5 hours postoperatively (P = .0032, P = .005, P = .020, P = .010). This trend continued for postoperative day 1, 2, 8, and 9 (40% reduction, P = .001; 49% reduction, P = .036; 38% reduction, P = .025; 33% reduction, P = .041). The experimental group had lower opioid consumption than the control group for the first 48 hours and second week postsurgery (P < .05). Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement scores for the experimental group showed significant improvement at 2 and 8 weeks postsurgery (P < .05). Serum morphine levels in the experimental group were significantly less than the control group 10 hours after IO injection (P = .049).

CONCLUSION

IO morphine combined with a standard antibiotic solution demonstrates superior postoperative pain relief immediately and up to 2 weeks. IO morphine is a safe and effective method to lessen postoperative pain in TKA patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, Level 1.

Preemptive Versus Reactive Topical Clobetasol for Regorafenib-Induced Hand-Foot Reactions: A Preplanned Analysis of the ReDOS Trial

BACKGROUND

Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is the most common regorafenib-induced adverse event and is in need of effective prevention and palliation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study (ReDOS), a four-arm, previously published trial with a 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme, was analyzed in a manner in keeping with the original protocol to assess whether clobetasol 0.05% cream (a corticosteroid) applied to the palms and soles twice per day for 8 weeks was more effective when prescribed preemptively (before the development of HFSR) versus reactively (after the development of HFSR). Patients were assessed during the first two cycles of regorafenib.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients received preemptive clobetasol, and 55 received reactive clobetasol. Groups were balanced on demographics. Over the first two cycles, no evidence of HFSR occurred in 30% with preemptive clobetasol versus 13% with reactive clobetasol (p = .03). During the first cycle, 54% and 45% of patients had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .35). During the second cycle, 33% and 15% had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .02). During the second cycle, rates of grade 1, 2, and 3 HFSR were 30%, 8%, and 3%, respectively, with preemptive clobetasol and 43%, 18%, and 7%, respectively, with reactive clobetasol (p = .12). Patient-reported outcomes showed HFSR compromised nearly all activities of daily living with worse quality of life in patients who received reactive versus preemptive clobetasol. No clobetasol-induced adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Preemptive clobetasol might lessen regorafenib-induced hand-foot reactions compared with reactive therapy. Further confirmatory studies are needed in a larger patient cohort.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Regorafenib causes hand-foot skin reactions. Preemptive clobetasol, a high-potency topical corticosteroid, appears to lessen the severity of this adverse event. Although further study is needed, the favorable adverse event profile of this intervention might prompt clinicians to discuss this option with their patients.

Anti-EGFR Monoclonal Antibodies in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite several clinical trials and advances in understanding the genetic basis of biliary tract cancer (BTC), the addition of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) targeted therapy does not seem to enhance the activity of first-line chemotherapy (CHT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out a meta-analysis of available randomized clinical trials to assess the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine-based first-line CHT plus monoclonal antibodies against EGFR (EGFR-mAbs) in advanced or metastatic BTC.

RESULTS

In the overall population, the pooled hazard ratio for overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) survival were 0.82 (95% confidence interval=0.64-1.06) and 0.88 (95% confidence intervaI=0.73-1.08), respectively. No differences were detected in objective response rate between the two groups. Patients treated with gemcitabine-based CHT plus EGFR-mAbs showed a statistically significant increased risk of grade 3-4 neutropenia, grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia and especially grade 3-4 skin rash.

CONCLUSION

The addition of EGFR-mAbs to gemcitabine-based first-line CHT does not significantly improve overall and progression-free survival, nor the objective response rate in patients with advanced BTC and increases the risk of hematological and cutaneous adverse drug events.

Safety and Tolerability of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Oncology

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that target epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have dramatically improved progression-free survival in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who carry sensitizing EGFR-activating mutations and in patients with breast and pancreatic cancers. However, EGFR-TKIs are associated with significant and disabling undesirable effects that adversely impact on quality of life and compliance. These effects include dermatological reactions, diarrhoea, hepatotoxicity, stomatitis, interstitial lung disease and ocular toxicity. Each individual EGFR-TKI is also associated with additional adverse effect(s) that are not shared widely by the other members of its class. Often, these effects call for dose reduction, treatment discontinuation or pharmacotherapeutic intervention. Since dermatological effects result from on-target effects on wild-type EGFR, rash is often considered to be a biomarker of efficacy. A number of studies have reported better outcomes in patients with skin reactions compared with those without. This has led to a 'dosing-to-rash' strategy to optimize therapeutic outcomes. Although conceptually attractive, there is currently insufficient evidence-based support for this strategy. While skin reactions following EGFR-TKIs are believed to result from an effect on wild-type EGFR, their efficacy is related to effects on mutant variants of EGFR. It is noteworthy that newer EGFR-TKIs that spare wild-type EGFR are associated with fewer dermatological reactions. Furthermore, secondary mutations such as T790M in exon 20 often lead to development of resistance to the clinical activity and efficacy of first- and second-generation EGFR-TKIs. This has stimulated the search for later-generations of EGFR-TKIs with the ability to overcome this resistance and with greater target selectivity to spare wild-type EGFR in expectations of an improved safety profile. However, available data reviewed herein indicate that not only are these newer agents associated with the aforementioned adverse effects typical of earlier agents, but they are also susceptible to resistance due to tertiary mutations, most frequently C797S. At least three later-generation EGFR-TKIs, canertinib, naquotinib and rociletinib, have been discontinued from further development in NSCLC following concerns about their safety and risk/benefit.

Cutaneous toxicity as a predictive biomarker for clinical outcome in patients receiving anticancer therapy

The relationship between treatment outcome and cutaneous toxicity induced by anticancer therapy has gained attention in the past decade. In this article, we have provided an overview of the 3 main classes of anticancer agents-specifically, molecularly targeted kinase inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and cytotoxic chemotherapeutics-and described the data evaluating the association between cutaneous toxicity induced by these agents and survival benefit. Although preliminary studies are promising with regard to the potential role of cutaneous toxicities as a surrogate biomarker of efficacy of treatment, larger prospective studies are needed to confirm this relationship. Dermatologists have a unique opportunity to collaborate with oncologists in the multidisciplinary treatment paradigm by helping to identify and manage these dermatologic events in patients with cancer. A heightened awareness of these toxicities is critical, as it can potentially allow recognition of the efficacy of anticancer therapy and may influence treatment decisions and patient outcomes.