[Cutaneous side effects of anti-tumor therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors]

New Oral Anti-Cancer Drugs and Medication Safety

BACKGROUND

Many oral anti-cancer drugs have come onto the market in the past 20 years. For example, kinase inhibitors, such as the BCR-ABL and BRAF inhibitors, have markedly improved the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia and melanoma. In this review, we discuss the special challenges posed by poor adherence, drug-drug interactions with other substances, and side effects, among other problems, and the ways in which these challenges can be met.

METHODS

A selective search was carried out in PubMed for original and review articles on the safety of new oral anti-cancer drugs. Guidelines and current Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPC) were also considered in the analysis.

RESULTS

Review articles have pointed out numerous safety concerns with oral anti-cancer drugs. One of these is adherence, on which highly variable figures are available (with mean non-adherence rates ranging from 0 to 54%). The absorption of approximately half of these drugs is influenced by the patient's diet, and that of approximately 20% by gastric pH (Caution: proton-pump inhibitors may influence bioavailability). 70% of the active substances are metabolized primarily by CYP3A4, which means that their pharmacokinetics can be altered by grapefruit juice and CYP3A4 modulators. The prevention, detection, and treatment of side effects (which can be gastrointestinal, cutaneous, cardiovascular, or other) is a highly important matter.

CONCLUSION

The increasing use of oral anti-cancer drugs confronts patients and treatment teams with special challenges. To optimize treatment outcomes, a multidisciplinary approach should be taken, involving physicians, pharmacists, and nurses. To improve medication safety, medication and side-effect management should be performed, and adherence should be regularly checked and systematically encouraged.

A randomized phase 2 trial of the efficacy and safety of a novel topical povidone-iodine formulation for Cancer therapy-associated Paronychia

Purpose Cancer therapy-associated paronychia (CAP) is a frequent adverse event associated with cytotoxic and targeted therapies that may impact dosing of anticancer therapies and patient quality of life (QoL). There are currently no evidence-based management strategies or approved treatments for CAP. Materials and Methods This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled phase 2 study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of 6 to 8 weeks of 1% or 2% povidone-iodine (PVP-I) topical solution versus vehicle-control in adult patients with CAP. Patients were randomized to one of three treatment arms administered twice daily: 1% PVP-I (Cohort A), 2% PVP-I (Cohort B), or vehicle-control (Cohort C). The primary endpoint was a two-grade reduction (or reduction to grade 0 if involved nails were grade 1) on the six-point Paronychia Severity Grading (PSG) scale. Secondary endpoints included safety and the effect on QoL and microbiota. Results A total of 102 patients with cancer were randomized to the study. In Cohort A, 83 of 205 (40.5%, P = 0.6059) affected nails met the primary endpoint versus Cohort C. In Cohort B, 88 of 167 (52.7%, P = 0.0063) affected nails met the primary endpoint versus 64 of 169 (37.9%) in Cohort C. Nineteen of 29 patients (65.5%) in Cohort B reported moderately or very painful nails at baseline that decreased to 15 patients (51.7%) at visit 2 and five patients (17.2%) at visit 3. Conclusions Treatment with twice-daily topical 2% PVP-I was safe and resulted in improvement in CAP compared with control. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03207906. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03207906.

Efficacy and safety of BRAF inhibition alone versus combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Recent clinical studies have shown that combination therapy of BRAF and MEK inhibition provides more survival benefit than BRAF inhibition monotherapy. However, the adverse events due to BRAF and MEK inhibitors impact the physical comfort and social life of patients. Thus, in this study we have undertaken a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the efficacy and adverse events risk between monotherapy and combination therapy. We identified the relevant studies by searching PubMed, EMBASE and Google scholar databases, between the year January 2000 and May 2016. Based on the heterogeneity, the fixed- or random-effects models were employed to analyze the efficacy and the incidence rate of adverse events. In addition, the subgroup analyses were conducted to overcome the effects of heterogeneity. Finally, our study included five RCTs, involving 1730 patients for this meta-analysis. The fixed-effects model demonstrated that combination therapy of BRAF and MEK inhibition provided more survival benefit in terms of ORR, PFS and OS (P < 0.00001). But, the combination therapy also significantly increased the incidences of pyrexia, chills, vomiting, chorioretinopathy, retinal detachment, hypertension, night sweats, increased aspartate aminotransferase and creatine kinase levels (P < 0.05) as compared to monotherapy. But, based on the significantly better survival outcomes, the combined BRAF and MEK inhibition will obviously be the mainstay therapy for the BRAF V600-mutant melanoma. However, a set of adverse events should be paid attention when physicians consider combination therapy.

Risk of selected dermatological toxicities in cancer patients treated with MEK inhibitors: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was conducted aiming at assessing the risk of selected dermatological toxicities associated with MEK inhibitors.

METHODS

We considered relevant prospective randomized Phase II and III trials of cancer patients on the three MEK inhibitors (trametinib, selumetinib and cobimetinib), describing events of skin rash and acneiform dermatitis, as eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

After exclusion of ineligible studies, a total of 14 clinical trials were considered eligible for the meta-analysis. The relative risk of all-grade skin rash and acneiform dermatitis was 1.71 (95% CI: 1.07-2.72; p = 0.02) and 6.55 (95% CI: 3.42-12.56; p < 0.00001), correspondingly; while the relative risk of high-grade skin rash and acneiform dermatitis was 2.64 (95% CI: 1.42-4.91; p = 0.002) and 8.44 (95% CI: 2.39-29.81; p = 0.0009), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis has demonstrated that MEK inhibitor-based treatment is associated with an increased risk of all-grade and high-grade skin rash and acneiform dermatitis compared with control.

[Treatment side effects and follow-up of malignant melanoma]

Side effects in the therapy of malignant melanoma are primarily of importance for radiologists in advanced tumor stages. The available treatment options and their respective side effect profiles have undergone a profound change in recent years after the introduction of modern oncological therapies (e.g. immunotherapy and targeted therapy) with an increasing focus on individual tumor biology and differ significantly from those of classical chemotherapy. The immunotherapeutic agents, in particular ipilimumab, take on a special position because of their specific immune-mediated mechanisms of action and the associated side effects, so-called immune-related adverse events (irAE). The majority of the treatment effects are manifested on the skin (> 50 %) and are generally not detectable by diagnostic radiology. Only a comparatively small proportion of treatment side effects is detectable with diagnostic imaging (15-20 %) but as in the example of therapy-induced colitis with ipilimumab, may be rapidly fatal. In addition to colitis (10-20 %) further therapy side effects apparent in diagnostic imaging are hypophysitis (1.8-17 %), thyroiditis (0.8 %), myositis (1.7 %), fasciitis and sarcoid-like lymph node alterations (6.8 %). To detect radiologically detectable side effects early on and to delineate them especially from tumor progression and (opportunistic) infections, detailed knowledge of the therapeutic methods for melanoma, the mechanisms of action and in particular the sometimes very specific side effects is imperative for radiologists.