Supportive oncodermatology-a narrative review of its utility and the way forward

International survey on training of dermatology residents in supportive oncodermatology: the RESCUE study

PURPOSE

The dermatological management of cancer patients with cutaneous adverse events occurring during and after oncologic treatment is known as supportive oncodermatology. This includes prevention, early identification, and mitigation of dermatologic toxicities. The aim of the international RESCUE (Residents' survey on training of dermatology residents in supportive oncodermatology) study was to ascertain the current level of expertise in supportive oncodermatology among dermatology residents.

METHODS

The European Task Force "Dermatology for cancer patients" and the US Oncodermatology Society developed an online questionnaire with 30 multiple-choice items. Responses were collected using qualitative ordinal data (yes/no, 1-5 ratings) and multiple-choice options. Ordinal range results were analyzed by aggregating responses 1 + 2 + 3 versus 4 + 5, with 5 representing the highest grade ("extremely confident" or "full training").

RESULTS

A total of 442 dermatology residents from 20 countries replied. These participants reported receiving less comprehensive training in supportive oncodermatology (only 41% receiving complete training) compared to immunodermatology (75%), cutaneous oncology (75%), dermoscopy (64%), and dermatologic surgery (50%). Only 17% of the residents reported feeling confident in managing the dermatological toxicities associated with anticancer treatments. Residents also indicated receiving less education regarding toxicities related to endocrine therapies (28%). In particular, lower levels of competence were reported in managing nail, hair, and oral toxicities. A significant majority of residents (98%) deemed it essential to enhance training in dermatological toxicities associated with anticancer therapies during their oncology residency.

CONCLUSION

The RESCUE study represents the first project assessing residents' education in supportive oncodermatology. To enable future generations of dermatologists to provide enhanced care for cancer patients, supportive oncodermatology training should be integrated in residency programs worldwide, corresponding to training in other subspecialties. A more practical approach should also be incorporated, including extended training in hair, nail, and oral toxicities, enhancing the competencies of dermatology residents in all countries.

Management of Skin Toxicities in Cancer Treatment: An Australian/New Zealand Perspective

Cancer systemic therapeutics and radiotherapy are often associated with dermatological toxicities that may reduce patients' quality of life and impact their course of cancer treatment. These toxicities cover a wide range of conditions that can be complex to manage with increasing severity. This review provides details on twelve common dermatological toxicities encountered during cancer treatment and offers measures for their prevention and management, particularly in the Australian/New Zealand context where skincare requirements may differ to other regions due to higher cumulative sun damage caused by high ambient ultraviolet (UV) light exposure. Given the frequency of these dermatological toxicities, a proactive phase is envisaged where patients can actively try to prevent skin toxicities.

Evaluation of a novel skin care product for the management of chemotherapy-related dermatologic toxicities: A quasi-experimental study

PURPOSE

Evaluate the efficacy of a novel skincare product for the management of chemotherapy-related dermatological toxicities.

METHODS

A monocentric, prospective, interventional, open-label, pretest-posttest, single-group study with cancer patients receiving chemotherapy (n = 100) was set up. All enrolled patients applied the emollient daily to their face and body for three weeks. The severity of the skin reactions was evaluated by a researcher using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0 at baseline and end of the trial. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) included the frequency and severity of skin symptoms (Numerical rating scale, NRS), quality of life (QoL; Skindex-16 and Dermatology Life Quality Index), Patient Benefit Index (PBI), and treatment satisfaction. PROs were collected at baseline, weekly, and at the end of the trial.

RESULTS

According to the CTCAE and NRS, the novel emollient significantly improved the severity and frequency of xerosis and pruritus (Ps ≤ .001). A significant reduction in the NRS score for frequency of erythema was measured (p < .001). The frequency and severity of burning and pain did not change. Regarding the patients' QoL, no beneficial effect of the skin care product was measurable. 44% of the patients experienced at least one patient-relevant treatment benefit. 87% of the patients were satisfied with the emollient and would recommend it.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the novel emollient significantly reduced chemotherapy-induced skin toxicity, more specifically xerosis and pruritus without hampering patient's QoL. Future research is needed to make definite conclusions using a study design including a control group and a long-term follow-up.

Diagnostic accuracy of general dermatologists and supportive oncodermatologists for biopsied cutaneous immune-related adverse events

PURPOSE

Supportive oncodermatology has been shown to improve several aspects of care for patients with cancer, but research showing improved diagnostic accuracy as a benefit of supportive oncodermatology is largely lacking. We thus aimed to evaluate different dermatologist groups' diagnostic accuracy for heterogenous cutaneous toxicities, using cutaneous immune-related adverse events (cirAEs) from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as a test model.

METHODS

Billing/requisition codes were used to identify patients who initiated programmed death-1/ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) ICIs between 2010 and 2019 at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Brigham and Women's Hospital/Massachusetts General Hospital and underwent a subsequent skin biopsy. For each biopsied cirAE, pre-biopsy clinical diagnoses and post-biopsy clinico-pathologic diagnoses were retrospectively obtained from the medical record. Each biopsy-ordering dermatology provider was categorized as a general dermatologist or supportive oncodermatologist on the basis of providing clinical care within a cancer-center or attending on a hospital/clinic service dedicated to anti-cancer drug-related skin toxicities.

RESULTS

Of 4,183 patients who initiated anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy between 2010 and 2019, 101 (2.4%) patients collectively had 104 biopsied cirAEs. In more than one-third of all reviewed biopsied cirAEs (n = 39, 37.5%), histopathology results frequently led to revision of the pre-biopsy clinical diagnosis. The rate of initial cirAE misclassification amongst supportive oncodermatologists was significantly lower than that amongst general dermatologists (18/66, 27.3% vs. 21/38, 55.3%; Fischer's-exact-test p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Experienced supportive oncodermatologists may benefit patient care through increased diagnostic accuracy for skin toxicities from ICIs. Collectively, these results underscore that both skin biopsy from any dermatology provider and oncodermatology referral (where available) are valuable resources that should be integrated into supportive cancer care.