Sunshine and rash: testing the role of sunscreen to prevent epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor-induced rash

Dermatologic adverse events to targeted therapies in lower GI cancers: clinical presentation and management

OPINION STATEMENT

Rapid advances in drug discovery and the regulatory approval of a number of novel anticancer agents during the past decade pose unique challenges to the oncology community. While the benefits of such therapies receive most attention, adverse events (AEs), especially those pertaining to subspecialties (e.g., dermatology), often are underemphasized. To ensure best clinical outcomes, it would be important to bridge the gap between approval of a new drug and devising effective management strategies for the AEs. With the incorporation of targeted therapies to the treatment paradigm of gastrointestinal malignancies, there has been a significant rise in dermatologic AEs among those treated. In addition to significantly affecting patients' quality of life, these AEs represent a growing problem and are relatively unfamiliar to many oncologists. The issue is further complicated by the lack of evidence-based management guidelines for such AEs in the oncology setting, the "generalizing" of terminology (e.g., rash) for some AEs, as well as an insufficient number of oncodermatologists for assistance with their management. It is important for the oncologist to gain familiarity with the most common, manageable and predictable AEs. Their identification is usually based on medical history, clinical features, and full-body skin examination (FBSE) and at times by obtaining a skin biopsy to aid in diagnosis. Although efforts are underway, presently, there is a paucity of biomarkers (e.g., serologic, genetic) to predict dermatologic AEs. Management often requires a multifaceted approach and includes topical, systemic, surgical, and physical (e.g., cryotherapy) modalities of treatment. Unfortunately, very few clinical trials have focused on this aspect of supportive care; therefore, most data on management derives from anecdotal data. Patients should be encouraged to actively report skin problems, while oncologists should play a vital role in addressing these AEs in their patients. Lastly, further research at the molecular and cellular level may assist in the elucidation of the mechanisms underlying these AEs and their clinical correlates, paving way for the design of effective therapies in this subset of patients.

A review of the treatment options for skin rash induced by EGFR-targeted therapies: Evidence from randomized clinical trials and a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Agents targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) are amongst the most extensively used of the targeted agents in the therapy of some of the most common solid tumors. Although they avoid many of the classic side effects associated with cytotoxic chemotherapy, they are associated with unpleasant cutaneous toxicities which can affect treatment compliance and impinge on patient quality of life. To date, despite a plethora of consensus recommendations, expert opinions and reviews, there is a paucity of evidence-based guidance for the management of the skin rash that occurs in the treatment of patients receiving EGFR-targeted therapies.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted as a first step towards investigating not only an evidence-based approach to the management of skin rash, but also with a view to designing future randomized trials.

RESULTS

The literature search identified seven randomized trials and a meta-analysis was conducted using the data from four of these trials involving oral antibiotics. The meta-analysis of the data from these four trials suggests that prophylactic antibiotics might reduce the relative risk of severe rash associated with EGFR-targeted agents by 42-77%. Vitamin K cream was also identified as having a potential role in the management EGFR-targeted agent induced rash.

CONCLUSIONS

This review and meta-analysis clearly identify the need for further randomized studies of the role of oral antibiotics in this setting. The results of the ongoing randomized trials of the topical application of vitamin K cream plus or minus doxycycline and employing prophylactic versus reactive strategies are eagerly awaited.

Dermatologic Toxicities from Monoclonal Antibodies and Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors against EGFR: Pathophysiology and Management

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition has now been well established as an effective treatment for various cancers. The EGFR belongs to the ErbB family of tyrosine kinase receptors which regulate tumor cell differentiation, survival and proliferation. Activation of EGFR drives tumorigenesis in lung, head and neck, colorectal and pancreatic cancers. Irrespective of the type of cancer being treated and the mechanism by which tumor EGFR drives tumorigenesis, the major side effect of EGFR inhibition is a papulopustular (also described as maculopapular or acneiform) rash which occurs in about two thirds of treated patients. Interestingly, this rash has been commonly correlated with better clinical outcomes (objective tumor response and patient survival). The pathophysiology of dermatological toxicity from EGFR inhibitors is an important area of clinical research, and the proper management of the rash is essential to increase the therapeutic index from this class of drugs. In this paper, we review the dermatologic toxicities associated with EGFR inhibitors with an emphasis on its pathophysiology and clinical management.

Using the Skindex-16 and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events to assess rash symptoms: results of a pooled-analysis (N0993)

BACKGROUND

Historically, skin toxicity has been assessed in prospective clinical trials using the clinician-reported National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). The patient-reported Skindex-16 measures symptoms and perceptions of toxicity. This study was designed to compare information provided by these two measures.

METHODS

Data were compiled from three placebo-controlled North Central Cancer Treatment Group studies (N06C4, N03CB, N05C4) having rash prevention as the primary objective. All used the Skindex-16 and CTCAE at baseline, weekly during treatment and during a minimum 2-week follow-up period. Statistical procedures, including Pearson correlations, were utilized to determine relationships between adverse event (AE) grades and Skindex-16 scores.

RESULTS

Four hundred and twelve individual patients provided data (median age, 61; 134 male). Patients' Skindex-16 score results show a 0.9 overall mean (range 0-6 with 6 being worse symptoms), a 0.4 baseline mean (range, 0-4.3) and a 1.3 end-of-treatment mean (range, 0-5.9). Ninety-three, 142 and 177 patients experienced a grade 0, 1 and 2+ CTCAE skin toxicity, respectively. Baseline Skindex-16 scores had relatively low correlation with CTCAE grades. The correlation of rash grade with Skindex-16 scores ranged from r = 0.49 with the function subscale to r = 0.62 with the symptom subscale. The highest correlations of the maximum grade of any dermatological AE with the Skindex-16 were r = 0.48 for the total score and r = 0.55 for the symptom subscale.

CONCLUSIONS

The data reported support the decision to include both measures in a clinical trial to assess the patient experience, as each measure may specifically target varying symptoms and intensities.