Practical considerations in the management of hand-foot skin reaction caused by multikinase inhibitors

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.

Topical interventions for preventing hand-foot syndrome resulting from antineoplastic therapy: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To map topical interventions used to prevent hand-foot syndrome in cancer patients undergoing antineoplastic therapy.

METHOD

This is a scoping review reported in accordance with the recommendations of PRISMA-ScR (extension for scoping review) and the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual. The searches were carried out in the electronic databases CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, LIVIVO, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science; and gray literature (Google Scholar, Pro-Quest).

RESULTS

The searches resulted in 12,016 references and the final sample consisted of 45 studies. A total of 42 topical interventions were identified, including: moisturizing creams, corticosteroids, acids, mapisal, silymarin, and henna. However, urea was the most cited intervention (62%). As for the presentations of the interventions, they varied among creams, ointments, gels, hydrocolloids, decoctions, patches, powders, oils, and soaps.

CONCLUSION

The results allowed reviewing topical interventions, with emphasis on the use of urea and moisturizing creams. However, most of the interventions identified in this review require evaluation in future studies for better understanding of their benefits.

Validation of the prophylactic efficacy of urea-based creams on sorafenib-induced hand-foot skin reaction in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A randomised experiment study

BACKGROUND

Hand-foot skin reaction may influence the effectiveness of patients' treatment, patient quality of life, and the economics of health care. An effective prophylactic dermatological cream for preventing sorafenib-induced hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is yet to be identified.

AIM

The aim of this study is validated the prophylactic efficacy of urea-based creams on sorafenib-induced hand-foot skin reaction in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

This was a randomised double-blind experimental study. A total of 129 patients with advanced HCC were randomly assigned to three groups. The comparison group received best supportive care (BSC), group A received BSC plus a moisturising cream, and group B received BSC plus a 10% urea-based cream. Incidence of HFSR and cutaneous wetness were assessed 3 days before starting sorafenib and each week after starting sorafenib for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed in the incidence density of sorafenib-induced HFSK (comparison group/A group, p > .05; comparison group/B group, p > .05). Group B reported significantly better cutaneous wetness of hands in the seventh week after starting sorafenib (p < .05) and of feet during the first 6 weeks (p < .05-.001).

CONCLUSION

This study found a nut size amount of a 10% urea-based cream applied twice a day can maintain patients' cutaneous wetness in the first 6 weeks after starting sorafenib than moisturising-alone cream. But it cannot reduce the occurrence of HFSR. Thus, the result supports nut-size dose of the 10% urea-based cream three times a day may be an appropriate dose to prevent HFSR. Clinical Trail Registration Number: NCT04568330.

Expert consensus on the management of adverse events in patients receiving lenvatinib for hepatocellular carcinoma

Lenvatinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor approved for use as first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, like other agents in this drug class, lenvatinib is associated with clinically important adverse events (AEs) that could adversely affect patient outcomes. Hypertension, diarrhea, decreased appetite/weight, hand-foot skin reaction, and proteinuria are among the most common AEs associated with lenvatinib therapy. This article provides strategies for the effective management of lenvatinib-associated AEs based on the expert opinion of authors and currently available literature. Due to the high risk of AEs in patients receiving lenvatinib, prophylactic measures and regular monitoring for AEs are recommended. Lenvatinib dose interruption, adjustment, or discontinuation of treatment may be required for patients who develop AEs. For grade 1 or 2 AEs, dose interruption is generally not required. For persistent or intolerable grade 2 or 3 AEs, lenvatinib treatment should be interrupted until symptoms improve/resolve to grade 0-1 or baseline levels. Thereafter, treatment should be resumed at the same or a lower dose. Disease progression may occur in patients who do not initially respond to treatment or receive a suboptimal lenvatinib dose following dose reduction, resulting in lack of efficacy. Therefore, to derive maximum treatment benefit and ensure long-term disease control, lenvatinib should be maintained at the highest possible dose when managing AEs. To conclude, lenvatinib-associated AEs can be managed with prophylactic measures, regular monitoring and symptomatic management, which can ensure continued treatment and maximum survival benefit in patients with advanced HCC receiving first-line lenvatinib therapy.

Meta-Analysis of Regorafenib-Associated Adverse Events and Their Management in Colorectal and Gastrointestinal Stromal Cancers

INTRODUCTION

To assess the risk factors associated with regorafenib-related adverse events (AEs) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). We also evaluated different measures of combatting AEs and their success rate to aid physicians in early identification and management of reported AEs.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted through the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to May 2018 according to the pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Pooled estimates with Pearson correlation were obtained with fixed or random-effects models.

RESULTS

From our analysis, it was evident that AEs were more common in patients aged less than 65 years compared to those aged at least 65 years (71.3% vs. 27.6%, p = 0.001). A statistically significant correlation was observed between the occurrence of AEs and a dose of 160 mg (r = 0.967; p = 0.001) while no significant correlation was found at 120 mg and 80 mg. The common measures used to manage AEs included lowering the regorafenib dose (41%), intermittent drug withdrawal (66.7%), and complete drug withdrawal (19%). About 57% of patients recovered from AE after their initiating dose was lowered.

CONCLUSION

Regorafenib-associated AEs are more common at an initiating dose of 160 mg. Considering that the efficacy depends on the dosage, 120 mg might be a better choice for mCRC and GIST patients; further studies are needed to validate the results of our analysis. Further prompt identification and management of AEs are required to help the patients continue with drug therapy.

Axitinib for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Renal cell carcinoma is a cancer that results from a genetic inactivation of the VHL tumor suppressor gene leading to an upregulation of VEGF. Targeted therapies against VEGF receptors have piqued substantial interest among clinicians and researchers, and these drugs are now the standard of care in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. One of these VEGF receptor inhibitors, axitinib, has been shown to be a superior second-line therapy when compared with sorafenib. Although axitinib has clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal cell carcinoma, utility in the front-line setting is area of ongoing investigation. Another area of ongoing research is dose titration of axitinib to achieve the maximum clinical benefit. Interestingly, the axitinib-related side effect of hypertension has shown to be associated with more favorable clinical outcomes. This article describes the development of axitinib and discusses the current indications for clinical use in the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

Adverse event management strategies: optimizing treatment with regorafenib in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) frequently experience treatment-related adverse events (AEs), which may lead to nonadherence or discontinuation from their treatment regimen. In the phase 3 CORRECT study, the addition of regorafenib to best supportive care (BSC) significantly increased overall survival and progression-free survival compared with placebo plus BSC in patients with mCRC who had progressed on all approved standard care therapies. Although regorafenib showed an acceptable safety profile, patients experienced treatment-related AEs such as hand-foot skin reaction, hypertension, oral mucositis, diarrhea, fatigue, and liver abnormalities. The goal of this article is to help oncology nurses implement a strategic, proactive approach to AE management in patients mCRC treated with regorafenib. The article reviews the most common AEs associated with regorafenib in patients who participated in the CORRECT study and provides a strategy and practical measures that nurses can apply to AE management. In addition, the article provides direction and guidance for educating patients and their caregivers on recognizing and managing potential side effects of regorafenib.

Non-rash dermatologic adverse events related to targeted therapies

OBJECTIVES

To provide background information and management strategies for non-rash dermatological adverse events.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed journal articles, professional manuals, online sources.

CONCLUSION

During the last decade, many dermatological adverse events of targeted therapy have been reported, including xerosis, skin fissures, pruritus, photosensitivity, pigmentation changes, hair and nail changes, hand-foot skin reaction, squamoproliferative lesions, Stevens-Johnsons syndrome, and toxic epidermal necrolysis. Although evidenced-based treatment options are scarce, many recommendations have been described in the literature that should be considered to apply in daily practice.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nursing practice will be enhanced by education, assessment, and management recommendations.

Randomized Controlled Trial of the Prophylactic Effect of Urea-Based Cream on Sorafenib-Associated Hand-Foot Skin Reactions in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Purpose

To assess whether urea-based cream (UBC) has prophylactic benefits on sorafenib-induced hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Patients and Methods

In this randomized, open-label trial, 871 patients with advanced HCC throughout China were treated with 10% UBC three times per day plus best supportive care (BSC; n = 439) or BSC alone excluding all creams (n = 432), starting on day 1 of sorafenib treatment, for up to 12 weeks. HFSR was assessed every 2 weeks and at 14 weeks for patients completing the study. Once HFSR occurred, patients were allowed any cream, including a UBC.

Results

The 12-week incidence of any grade HFSR was significantly lower in the UBC group versus the BSC-alone group (56.0% v 73.6%, respectively; odds ratio [OR], 0.457; 95% CI, 0.344 to 0.608; P < .001), as was the incidence of grade ≥ 2 HFSR (20.7% v 29.2%, respectively; OR, 0.635; 95% CI, 0.466 to 0.866; P = .004). Median time to first occurrence of HFSR was significantly longer in the UBC group than the BSC-alone group (84 v 34 days, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.658; 95% CI, 0.541 to 0.799; P < .001). Elevated AST was associated with increased risk of HFSR but did not alter the treatment effect of UBC. UBC plus BSC, compared with BSC alone, did not affect the sorafenib dose reduction or interruption rate (9.1% v 11.8%, respectively; P = .1937), response rate (11.1% v 10.1%, respectively; P = .6674), or disease control rate (98.8% v 98.2%, respectively; P = .5350) at week 12.

Conclusion

UBC prophylaxis in patients with advanced HCC starting sorafenib reduced HFSR rates, extended the time to first occurrence of HFSR, and improved patient quality of life compared with BSC. Blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trials to determine the role of UBC on the incidence and severity of HFSR are warranted.

Refining sorafenib therapy: lessons from clinical practice

Understanding the best use of sorafenib is essential in order to maximize clinical benefit in hepatocellular carcinoma. Based on Phase III and noninterventional study data, as well as our extensive experience, we discuss dose modification in order to manage adverse events, disease response evaluation and how to maximize treatment benefit. Sorafenib should be initiated at the approved dose (400 mg twice daily) and reduced/interrupted as appropriate in order to manage adverse events. Dose modification should be considered before discontinuation. Appropriate tumor response assessment is critical. Focusing on radiologic response may result in premature sorafenib discontinuation; symptomatic progression should also be considered. If second-line therapies or trials are unavailable, continuing sorafenib beyond radiologic progression may provide a clinical benefit. Our recommendations enable the maximization of treatment duration, and hence clinical benefit, for patients.

Regorafenib as a new standard of care in advanced colorectal cancer

SUMMARY 

Standard treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) involves chemotherapy based on fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, irinotecan and treatments targeting the angiogenic pathway, and EGFR in RAS wild-type tumors. Regorafenib, an active multikinase inhibitor, demonstrated activity against mCRC in Phase I and II studies. The CORRECT study demonstrated activity of regorafenib in third line versus placebo. The primary end point (overall survival), was met (6.4 vs 5.0 months [hazard ratio: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.64–0.94; p = 0.0052]). Median progression-free survival was 1.9 versus 1.7 months (hazard ratio: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.42–0.58; p < 0.0001). Most common adverse events of regorafenib were hand–foot skin reaction, fatigue, diarrhea, hypertension and rash or desquamation and stomatitis, but with a close management and/or dose modifications were controlled. In conclusion, regorafenib is a new standard in third line in mCRC.

Regorafenib: a review of its use in previously treated patients with progressive metastatic colorectal cancer

Regorafenib (Stivarga) is an inhibitor of multiple protein kinases, including those involved in oncogenesis, tumour angiogenesis and maintenance of the tumour microenvironment. The drug is approved as monotherapy for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in patients who have previously received all standard systemic anticancer treatments (US, EU and Canada) or in patients with unresectable, advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer (Japan). In the randomized, controlled COloRectal cancer treated with REgorafenib or plaCebo after failure of standard Therapy (CORRECT) trial, regorafenib 160 mg once daily for the first 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle plus best supportive care (BSC) was associated with a significantly longer median overall survival than placebo plus BSC in patients with previously treated, progressive mCRC. The drug was also associated with significantly longer progression-free survival and better disease control rates than placebo, although objective response rates were similar in both treatment groups. Regorafenib did not appear to compromise health-related quality of life over the study duration and had a generally acceptable tolerability profile. The introduction of regorafenib expands the currently limited range of effective treatment options in patients with previously treated, progressive mCRC.

[Hand-foot syndrome with tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy: treatment recommendations]

A significant component of advanced renal cell carcinoma therapy is treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Hand-foot syndrome is a frequent adverse reaction and the quality of life of patients can be considerably affected depending on the severity. Effective treatment options are, therefore, essential and standardization of treatment recommendations is desirable. In this article practical and standardized recommendations for the treatment of outpatients with hand-foot syndrome are introduced and several strategies for prophylaxis and therapy are discussed.

Prevention and management of adverse events related to regorafenib

Regorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor that has shown antitumor activity in a range of solid tumors. Based on data from phase III clinical trials, regorafenib is indicated for the treatment of adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who have previously been treated with, or are not considered candidates for, other available therapies, and in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors that cannot be surgically removed and no longer respond to other appropriate treatments. A panel of oncology nurses, research coordinators, and other medical oncology experts, experienced in the care of patients treated with regorafenib, met to discuss the best practice for the management of regorafenib-associated adverse events (AEs). The panel agreed that, in clinical trials and daily practice with regorafenib, AEs are common but mostly manageable. The most common and/or important AEs associated with regorafenib were considered to be hand-foot skin reaction, rash or desquamation, stomatitis, diarrhea, hypertension, liver abnormalities, and fatigue. This manuscript describes the experience and recommendations of the panel for managing these AEs in everyday clinical practice. Appropriate education, monitoring, and management are considered essential for reducing the incidence, duration, and severity of regorafenib-associated AEs.

Axitinib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Targeted agents have revolutionized the management of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Axitinib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), has been an important addition to currently available therapies for advanced RCC. Its ability to inhibit VEGFRs at nanomolar concentrations distinguishes it as a potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with increased selectivity for VEGFR-1, 2, and 3 at clinically applicable concentrations. The phase 3 AXIS trial has established its superiority in prolonging progression-free survival (PFS) in previously treated RCC patients (median PFS 6.7 months for axitinib vs. 4.7 months for sorafenib). Common toxicities of axitinib include hypertension, diarrhea, nausea, hand-foot syndrome, fatigue, and hypothyroidism. Axitinib-induced diastolic blood pressure elevation may be associated with improved clinical outcome, likely reflecting the “on-target” effect of axitinib. Dose escalation to achieve therapeutic plasma drug levels is of considerable clinical interest. Although axitinib has established efficacy in patients treated with one previous agent, its use in the frontline setting is currently the subject of ongoing research.

Targeted therapies for renal cell carcinoma: review of adverse event management strategies

With the advent of targeted agents for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma (RCC), overall survival has improved, and patients are being treated continuously for increasingly long periods of time. This has raised challenges in the management of adverse events (AEs) associated with the six targeted agents approved in RCC-sorafenib, sunitinib, pazopanib, bevacizumab (in combination with interferon alpha), temsirolimus, and everolimus. Suggestions for monitoring and managing AEs have been published, but there are few consensus recommendations. In addition, there is a risk that patients will be subjected to multiple unnecessary investigations. In this review, we aimed to identify the level of supporting evidence for suggested AE management strategies to provide practical guidance on essential monitoring and management that should be undertaken when using targeted agents. Five databases were systematically searched for relevant English language articles (including American Society of Clinical Oncology abstracts) published between January 2007 and March 2011; European Society of Medical Oncology congress abstracts were hand searched. Strategies for AE management were summarized and categorized according to the level of recommendation. A total of 107 articles were identified that describe a large number of different investigations for monitoring AEs and interventions for AE management. We identify and summarize clear recommendations for the management of dermatologic, gastrointestinal, thyroid, cardiovascular, and other AEs, based predominantly on expert opinion. However, because the evidence for the suggested management strategies is largely anecdotal, there is a need for further systematic investigation of management strategies for AEs related to targeted therapies for RCC.

Oral agents in cancer treatment: the context for adherence

OBJECTIVES

To review oral agents approved for cancer, discuss their mechanism of action and/or molecular targets, and outline side effects and challenges that impact adherence.

DATA SOURCES

Peer reviewed literature and on-line drug information.

CONCLUSION

Oral agents to treat cancer, although not new, are common and increasing dramatically. The context of adherence to oral agents is complicated by increased knowledge of food-drug interactions and combinations of agents with overlapping or synergistic toxicity profiles.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

The role of nursing in the administration and education of oral cancer treatments is critical to optimal treatment outcomes.

Strategies for assessing and managing the adverse events of sorafenib and other targeted therapies in the treatment of renal cell and hepatocellular carcinoma: recommendations from a European nursing task group

PURPOSE

As a group of European nurses familiar with treating patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using targeted/chemo- therapies, we aimed to review strategies for managing adverse events (AEs) associated with one targeted therapy, sorafenib.

METHOD

Focusing on the AEs we considered the most difficult to manage (hand-foot skin reaction [HFSR], diarrhoea, fatigue and mucositis/stomatitis), we reviewed the literature to identify strategies relevant to sorafenib. Given the paucity of published work, this included strategies concerning targeted agents in general. This information was supplemented by considering the wider literature relating to management of these AEs in other tumour types and similar toxicities experienced during conventional anti-cancer therapy. Together with our own experience, this information was used to compile an AE management guide to assist nurses caring for patients receiving sorafenib.

RESULTS

Our collated experience suggests the most commonly reported AEs with sorafenib and other targeted agents are HFSR, diarrhoea, fatigue, rash and mucositis/stomatitis; these generally have an acute (appearing at ∼0-1 months) or delayed onset (appearing at ∼3 months). Most management strategies in the literature were experience-based rather than arising from controlled studies. However, strategies based on controlled studies are available for HFSR and mucositis/stomatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence, especially from controlled studies, is sparse concerning management of AEs associated with sorafenib and other targeted agents in RCC/HCC. However, recommendations can be made based on the literature and clinical experience that encompasses targeted and conventional therapies, particularly in the case of non-specific toxicities e.g. diarrhoea and fatigue.

Management of tyrosine kinase inhibitor-induced hand-foot skin reaction: viewpoints from the medical oncologist, dermatologist, and oncology nurse

One significant toxicity associated with the anticancer tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR). We provide an overview of HFSR, emphasizing experience-based prevention techniques and nursing management strategies from the viewpoints of a medical oncologist, a dermatologist, and an oncology nurse. Supporting data include (1) published preclinical and phase I-III clinical studies and (2) published abstracts of phase II-III clinical trials of sorafenib and sunitinib. HFSR has been reported in up to 60% of patients treated with sorafenib or sunitinib. TKI-induced HFSR may lead to dose reductions or treatment interruptions and reduced quality of life. Symptoms of TKI-associated HFSR can be managed by implementing supportive measures and aggressive dose modification. Patients educated about HFSR can work with their health-care teams to proactively detect and help manage this cutaneous toxicity, thus preventing or reducing the severity of TKI-associated HFSR. Successful prevention and management of TKI-associated HFSR can help to ensure that patients achieve optimal therapeutic outcomes. Implementation of such measures may increase the likelihood that therapy is continued for the appropriate interval at an appropriate dose for each patient. Optimal management of TKI-associated HFSR is predicated on establishing appropriate partnerships amongmedical oncologists, dermatologists, oncology nurses, and patients.

Placebo-controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of a urea/lactic acid-based topical keratolytic agent for prevention of capecitabine-induced hand-foot syndrome: North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study N05C5

PURPOSE

Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is a dose-limiting toxicity of capecitabine for which no effective preventative treatment has been definitively demonstrated. This trial was conducted on the basis of preliminary data that a urea/lactic acid-based topical keratolytic agent (ULABTKA) may prevent HFS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A randomized, double-blind phase III trial evaluated 137 patients receiving their first ever cycle of capecitabine at a dose of either 2,000 or 2,500 mg/m(2) per day for 14 days. Patients were randomly assigned to a ULABTKA versus a placebo cream, which was applied to the hands and feet twice per day for 21 days after the start of capecitabine. Patients completed an HFS diary (HFSD) daily. HFS toxicity grade (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE] v3.0) was also collected at baseline and at the end of each cycle. The primary end point was the incidence of moderate/severe HFS symptoms in the first treatment cycle, based on the patient-reported HFSD.

RESULTS

The percentage of patients with moderate/severe HFS symptoms was not different between groups, being 13.6% in the ULABTKA arm and 10.2% in the placebo arm (P = .768 by Fisher's exact test). The odds ratio was 1.37 (95% CI, 0.37 to 5.76). Cycle 1 CTCAE skin toxicity was higher in the ULABTKA arm but not significantly so (33% v 27%; P = .82). No significant differences were observed in other toxicities between groups.

CONCLUSION

These data do not support the efficacy of a ULABTKA cream for preventing HFS symptoms in patients receiving capecitabine.