Etoposide-related acral erythema

Adverse cutaneous reactions to chemotherapeutic drugs

Drug reactions resulting from chemotherapy agents are common and frequently affect the skin. Although often benign, a select few of these cutaneous reactions may necessitate immediate changes to the antineoplastic regimens. Given the diversity of chemotherapeutic skin reactions and their complex implications on patient management, an organized conceptual schema is imperative for proper patient care. We evaluate a number of commonly seen chemotherapy-induced skin toxicities organized by pathogenic mechanism and drug class, providing a framework for the identification and categorization of adverse events to prevent unrecognition. Groupings of these reactions include direct cytotoxicity and/or drug accumulation, immunologic hypersensitivity, and aberrant molecular signaling.

Pyridoxine for prevention of hand-foot syndrome caused by chemotherapy: a systematic review

Background

Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is a relatively frequent dermatologic toxic reaction to certain anti-cancer chemotherapies. The syndrome can evolve into a distressing condition that limits function and affects quality of life. Pyridoxine (vitamin B6) has been used empirically for the prevention of HFS caused by anti-cancer therapy. However, evidence of its efficacy remains controversial.

Methodology//Principal Findings

Systematic literature searches were conducted on the Cochrane Library, PUBMED, EMBASE, LILACS, CBM, CNKI, VIP, WANFANG and the U.S. ClinicalTrials.gov website. We included all related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) irrespective of language. Reviewers from different professions independently assessed all potential studies and extracted data. Subgroup analysis was planned according to dose of pyridoxine. 5 RCTs involving 607 patients were contributed to the meta-analysis. No significant differences were found between patients receiving pyridoxine and placebo for prevention of incidence of HFS and grade 2 or worse HFS (relative risk (RR) 0.96, 95%confidence interval (CI) 0.86–1.06; RR0.95, 95%CI 0.73–1.24, respectively). Similarly, no significant improvement in quality of life was detected among patients. However, significant difference was found for prevention of grade 2 or worse HFS with pyridoxine 400 mg daily compared to 200 mg (RR0.55, 95%CI 0.33–0.92).

Conclusions/Significance

There is inadequate evidence to make any recommendation about using pyridoxine for prevention of HFS caused by chemotherapy. However, pyridoxine 400 mg may have some efficacy. Further studies of large sample sizes are needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pyridoxine, especially at high dose, in comparison with placebo.

Celecoxib can prevent capecitabine-related hand-foot syndrome in stage II and III colorectal cancer patients: result of a single-center, prospective randomized phase III trial

BACKGROUND

Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is the most common adverse event induced by capecitabine. Some clinicians think that HFS is a type of inflammation limited to the hands and feet and can be prevented with a COX-2 inhibitor (celecoxib).

METHODS

We designed a single-center, prospective randomized clinical trial to test the hypothesis. From August 2008 to December 2010, stage II and III colorectal cancer patients receiving capecitabine-based chemotherapy enrolled in the trial voluntarily. All patients were divided randomly into two groups treated with or without celecoxib. All adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Grade 1 and grade 2 HFS were more common in the capecitabine group than in the capecitabine/celecoxib group (74.6% versus 57.4%, P = 0.034, 29.6% versus 14.7% P = 0.035). The use of celecoxib (P < 0.001, P = 0.003) and the level of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (P = 0.048, P = 0.014) affected the incidence of grade 1 and 2 HFS, as determined by log-rank analysis. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis indicated that the use of celecoxib was the only factor that affected the incidence of ≥ grade 1 HFS [Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.556, P = 0.001] and ≥ grade 2 HFS (HR: 0.414, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Celecoxib can be used effectively and safely to prevent capecitabine-related HFS.

Pyridoxine Is Not Effective to Prevent Hand-Foot Syndrome Associated With Capecitabine Therapy: Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

Purpose

To determine whether concurrent pyridoxine therapy can prevent the development of hand-foot syndrome (HFS) in patients being treated with capecitabine.

Methods

Chemotherapy-naive patients with GI tract cancers scheduled for capecitabine-containing chemotherapy were randomly assigned to concurrent oral pyridoxine (200 mg/d) or placebo. Patients were stratified by chemotherapy regimen and monitored until development of National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria grade 2 or worse HFS or capecitabine-containing chemotherapy ended. Patients in the placebo group who developed grade 2 or worse HFS were randomly assigned again to receive pyridoxine or placebo in the next chemotherapy cycle to determine whether pyridoxine could improve HFS.

Results

The median number of chemotherapy cycles to grade 2 or worse HFS was three in both groups. Grade 2 or worse HFS developed in 55 (30.6%) of 180 placebo-treated patients and in 57 (31.7%) of 180 pyridoxine patients. The cumulative dose of capecitabine to grade 2 or worse HFS was not different between the two groups (median not reached in either group; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95; P = .788). Randomization of the 44 patients in the placebo group with grade 2 or worse HFS to placebo or pyridoxine for the next cycle resulted in no significant difference in the proportion showing improvement of HFS (42.9% v 47.8%; HR = 1.12; P = .94). By multivariate analysis, age ≥ 56 years (HR = 1.768; 95% CI, 1.190 to 2.628; P = .005) was an independent risk factor for grade 2 or worse HFS, and combined use of docetaxel (HR = 2.046; 95% CI, 0.880 to 4.755; P = .096) was of borderline significance.

Conclusion

Pyridoxine is not effective in prevention of capecitabine-associated HFS.

Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE): a literature review with commentary on experience in a cancer centre

Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) or hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is a relatively common side effect of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Many cytotoxic drugs have been reported to cause the condition but it is more frequently associated with 5 fluorouracil (5FU), liposomal doxorubicin and cytarabine. The oral 5FU precursor, capecitabine is frequently associated with PPE and with the recent extension of its use to adjuvant treatment, the incidence of PPE is likely to increase. The initial symptoms are dysesthesia and tingling in the palms, fingers and soles of feet and erythema, which may progress to burning pain with dryness, cracking, desquamation, ulceration and oedema. Palms of the hands are more frequently affected than soles of the feet. This condition is painful and distressing to patients and in some incidences it results in patients not being able to work or perform normal daily activities. It can also result in treatment interruptions which impact on the efficacy of the treatment regimen. Effective and appropriate patient education from a specialist nurse prior to treatment is an essential part of patient management which will facilitate early identification of the symptoms and therefore prevent treatment delays and PPE progression. This article reviews current knowledge of the condition, including classification, and discussion of the findings of a clinical audit in a cancer centre. It includes the incidence, grading, management and impact of PPE on normal daily activities.

Cutaneous reactions to chemotherapy and their management

International data from 2002 report 10.9 million new cases of cancer and 6.7 million cancer deaths. Chemotherapy is an essential component in the multidisciplinary management of most cancers. Cutaneous reactions to chemotherapeutics are common and may contribute significantly to the morbidity, and rarely to the mortality, of patients undergoing such treatments. Recognition and management of these reactions is important to provide optimal care. This article aims to present the most common cutaneous reactions to frequently used chemotherapies and provides management guidelines. A MEDLINE search from 1966 through June 2005 was conducted to identify reports of common cutaneous toxicities with systemic chemotherapy and their appropriate management. An analysis of our literature search is presented in review form outlining common chemotherapy-related cutaneous reactions and their management, as well as the chemotherapeutics responsible for the cutaneous toxicity. Chemotherapy-related cutaneous toxicity includes generalized rashes such as the spectrum between erythema multiforme and toxic epidermal necrolysis, and site-specific toxicity such as mucositis, alopecia, nail changes, extravasation reactions, or hand-foot syndrome. Most of the toxicity is reversible with chemotherapy dose reductions or delays. Certain toxicities can be effectively treated or prevented, allowing optimal delivery of chemotherapy (e.g. premedications to prevent hypersensitivity, prophylactic mouthwashes to prevent mucositis). Newer non-chemotherapeutic targeted therapies such as epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (e.g. gefitinib, cetuximab) may also be associated with cutaneous toxicity and can be distressing for patients. Recent data suggest that skin toxicity associated with these agents may correlate with efficacy. Cutaneous toxicity occurs frequently with chemotherapy and non-chemotherapeutic biologic therapies. Early recognition and treatment of the toxicity facilitates good symptom control, prevents treatment-related morbidity, and allows continuation of anti-cancer therapy.

Particular cutaneous side effects with etoposide-containing courses: is VP16 or etoposide phosphate responsible?

PURPOSE

Etoposide is commercially available in France in two different pharmaceutical forms: VP16 and its phosphate ester (etoposide phosphate, EP). EP shows better chemical and physical properties, is said to be less toxic but is five times more expensive than VP16. Some criteria were defined for the use of each form in the Paediatric Oncohaematology Department in Hopital Sud in Rennes. As some particular cutaneous side effects were observed during treatment with etoposide-based course in this department, a retrospective study was initiated. The aims of this work were to determine the side effects (especially cutaneous toxicity), whether the pharmaceutical formulation of etoposide had any influence on the toxicity of the drug, and whether the observed side effects resulted from etoposide alone or from particular antineoplastic drug associations.

METHODS

Five types of etoposide-containing protocols were chosen: NB 97 and NB 99 (neuroblastoma), FRALLE 93 (acute lymphoid leukaemia), LAME 91 (acute myeloid leukaemia), OS 94 (osteosarcoma), Ewing 97 and Euro-Ewing 99 (Ewing sarcoma). The medical files of 36 children (88 EP courses, 25 VP16 courses) included in these protocols were analysed on the basis that if a child showed a side effect during a course, the child had to have recovered from that side effect before the beginning of the next course.

RESULTS

Apart from classical side effects (haematological and digestive toxicities etc.), two particular cutaneous side effects were observed: (1) palmar-plantar eruptions and nail inflammations, and (2) irritation of the anal area and anal fissures. Those side effects were observed with three of the studied protocols: NB 97, OS 94 and Ewing sarcoma treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

No striking differences in toxicity appeared between the two etoposide formulations, but this retrospective study seemed to confirm the appearance of particular cutaneous and anal side effects especially with two associations: (1) etoposide-ifosfamide (OS 94 and Ewing 97), and (2) etoposide-ifosfamide-Adriamycin-vincristine (VIDE course of the Euro-Ewing 99 protocol).

Antineoplastic therapy-induced palmar plantar erythrodysesthesia ('hand-foot') syndrome. Incidence, recognition and management

Palmar plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE) is a distinctive and relatively frequent toxic reaction related to some chemotherapeutic agents. Doxorubicin, cytarabine, docetaxel, and fluorouracil are the most frequently implicated agents. PPE seems to be dose dependent and both peak drug concentration and total cumulative dose determine its occurrence. PPE presents as a painful erythema, often preceded by paresthesia, located on the palms and soles in the context of treatment with chemotherapy. Histologically, PPE shows few specific findings. Mild spongiosis, scattered necrotic and dyskeratotic keratinocytes and vacuolar degeneration of the basal layer is seen. Dermal changes in most cases include dilated blood vessels, papillary edema, and a sparse superficial perivascular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate can be found in varying degrees in the epidermis. Withdrawal or dose reduction of the implicated drug usually gives rise to amelioration of the symptoms. Supportive treatments such as topical wound care, elevation, and cold compresses may help to relieve the pain. Use of systemic corticosteroids, pyridoxine (vitamin B6), blood flow reduction, and, recently, topical 99% dimethyl-sulfoxide have been used with variable outcomes. It could be of interest to consider them as preventive measures when drugs with a strong association with PPE are going to be administered.

High incidence of chemotherapy-induced acral erythema in female patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with the VACOP-B regimen

Seven patients, all females out of 29 with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) (16 males and 13 females) treated with the VACOP-B regimen utilizing granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support developed chemotherapy-induced acral erythema (CAE). In contrast, none of 32 patients with NHL who were treated with CHOP, MACOP-B, or biweekly CHOP regimens without G-CSF developed CAE. Total dose intensities of VACOP-B regimen were higher than those of the three other regimens. However, no significant difference in dose intensities of each drug in the patients treated with the VACOP-B regimen was found between male and female patients and between female patients with or without CAE. The cause of the high incidence of CAE (7/13) in the female patients treated with VACOP-B regimen remains unknown. However, female sex hormones may increase susceptibility to CAE. Since the occurrence of CAE interrupts intensive chemotherapy and reduces the cure rate, high risk patients for CAE should be carefully monitored for early symptoms and signs of CAE and should be treated early and appropriately.