Background

Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRI) produce various dermatologic side effects in the majority of patients, and guidelines are crucial for the prevention and treatment of these untoward events. The purpose of this panel was to develop evidence-based recommendations for EGFRI-associated dermatologic toxicities.

Methods

A multinational, interdisciplinary panel of experts in supportive care in cancer reviewed pertinent studies using established criteria in order to develop first-generation recommendations for EGFRI-associated dermatologic toxicities.

Results

Prophylactic and reactive recommendations for papulopustular (acneiform) rash, hair changes, radiation dermatitis, pruritus, mucositis, xerosis/fissures, and paronychia are presented, as well as general dermatologic recommendations when possible.

Conclusion

Prevention and management of EGFRI-related dermatologic toxicities is critical to maintain patients' health-related quality of life and dose intensity of antineoplastic regimens. More rigorous investigation of these toxicities is warranted to improve preventive and treatment strategies.

Purpose

Dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) in cancer treatment are frequent with the use of targeted therapies. These dAEs have been shown to have significant impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). While standardized assessment tools have been developed for physicians to assess severity of dAEs, there is a discord between objective and subjective measures. The identification of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments useful in the context of targeted cancer therapies is therefore important in both the clinical and research settings for the overall evaluation of dAEs and their impact on HRQoL.

Methods

A comprehensive, systematic literature search of published articles was conducted by two independent reviewers in order to identify PRO instruments previously utilized in patient populations with dAEs from targeted cancer therapies. The identified PRO instruments were studied to determine which HRQoL issues relevant to dAEs were addressed, as well as the process of development and validation of these instruments.

Results

Thirteen articles identifying six PRO instruments met the inclusion criteria. Four instruments were general dermatology (Skindex-16©, Skindex-29©, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and DIELH-24) and two were symptom-specific (functional assessment of cancer therapy-epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor-18 (FACT-EGFRI-18) and hand-foot syndrome 14 (HFS-14)).

Conclusions

While there are several PRO instruments that have been tested in the context of targeted cancer therapy, additional work is needed to develop new instruments and to further validate the instruments identified in this study in patients receiving targeted therapies.

Background and purpose

The Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in squamous cell Head and Neck Cancer (MACH-NC) demonstrated that concomitant chemotherapy (CT) improved overall survival (OS) in patients without distant metastasis. We report the updated results.

Materials and methods

Published or unpublished randomized trials including patients with non-metastatic carcinoma randomized between 1965 and 2016 and comparing curative loco-regional treatment (LRT) to LRT + CT or adding another timing of CT to LRT + CT (main question), or comparing induction CT + radiotherapy to radiotherapy + concomitant (or alternating) CT (secondary question) were eligible. Individual patient data were collected and combined using a fixed-effect model. OS was the main endpoint.

Results

For the main question, 101 trials (18951 patients, median follow-up of 6.5 years) were analyzed. For both questions, there were 16 new (2767 patients) and 11 updated trials. Around 90% of the patients had stage III or IV disease. Interaction between treatment effect on OS and the timing of CT was significant (p < 0.0001), the benefit being limited to concomitant CT (HR: 0.83, 95%CI [0.79; 0.86]; 5(10)-year absolute benefit of 6.5% (3.6%)). Efficacy decreased as patients age increased (p_trend = 0.03). OS was not increased by the addition of induction (HR = 0.96 [0.90; 1.01]) or adjuvant CT (1.02 [0.92; 1.13]). Efficacy of induction CT decreased with poorer performance status (p_trend = 0.03). For the secondary question, eight trials (1214 patients) confirmed the superiority of concomitant CT on OS (HR = 0.84 [0.74; 0.95], p = 0.005).

Conclusion

The update of MACH-NC confirms the benefit and superiority of the addition of concomitant CT for non-metastatic head and neck cancer.