A Randomized Controlled Trial of Epidermal Growth Factor Ointment for Treating Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitor-Induced Skin Toxicities

Young Saing Kim, Jun Ho Ji, Sung Yong Oh, Suee Lee, Seok Jae Huh, Ji Hyun Lee, Ki-Hoon Song, Choon Hee Son, Mee Sook Roh, Gyeong Won Lee, Jeeyun Lee, Seung Tae Kim, Chan Kyu Kim, Joung Soon Jang, In Gyu Hwang, Hee Kyung Ahn, Lee Chun Park, So Yeon Oh, Seong-Geun Kim, Sang-Cheol Lee, Do-Hyoung Lim, Soon Il Lee, Jung Hun Kang, Young Saing Kim, Jun Ho Ji, Sung Yong Oh, Suee Lee, Seok Jae Huh, Ji Hyun Lee, Ki-Hoon Song, Choon Hee Son, Mee Sook Roh, Gyeong Won Lee, Jeeyun Lee, Seung Tae Kim, Chan Kyu Kim, Joung Soon Jang, In Gyu Hwang, Hee Kyung Ahn, Lee Chun Park, So Yeon Oh, Seong-Geun Kim, Sang-Cheol Lee, Do-Hyoung Lim, Soon Il Lee, Jung Hun Kang

Abstract

Background: The efficacy of epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor (EGFR) inhibitors in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), pancreatic cancer (PC), or colorectal cancer (CRC) has been demonstrated. However, dermatological reactions to these inhibitors can cause significant physical and psychosocial discomfort. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of EGF ointment for EGFR inhibitor-related skin adverse events (ERSEs).

Materials and methods: This placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter, pilot phase III trial enrolled patients with NSCLC, PC, or CRC treated with EGFR inhibitors. Patients with grade ≥2 ERSEs were included. Patients were randomized to three treatment arms: arm 1, placebo; arm 2, 1 ppm of EGF ointment; and arm 3, 20 ppm of EGF ointment. Patients applied ointment to their skin lesions twice daily.

Results: Efficacy evaluation was available for 80 patients (9 for PC, 28 for NSCLC, and 43 for CRC). Responses were 44.4% in arm 1, 61.5% in arm 2, and 77.8% in arm 3. There was a linear correlation between EGF concentrations and responses (p = .012). Quality of life (QoL) was assessed for 74 patients. Maximum changes in composite scores by Skindex-16 after treatment were significantly different among arms (mean ± SD: -5.2 ± 8.6 for arm 1, -11.7 ± 14.2 for arm 2, and - 18.6 ± 17.7 for arm 3; p = .008). EGF arms showed significant improvement in emotions (p = .005) and functioning (p = .044) scores over the placebo arm.

Conclusion: EGF ointment is effective for managing ERSEs. It can also improve patients' QoL compared with placebo. Clinical trial identification number. NCT02284139 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients with non-small cell lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, or colorectal cancer who are treated with epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptor (EGFR) inhibitors may experience dermatologic reactions to their treatment. This study investigated the benefit of an EGF ointment in the treatment of these adverse events and observed the ointment to be effective in managing EGFR inhibitor-related skin adverse events.

Keywords: Adverse event; Epidermal growth factor ointment; Epidermal growth factor receptor; Quality of life; Skin.

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article.

© 2019 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AlphaMed Press.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A 63‐year‐old female patient with non‐small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib (150 mg). (A): Erythematous multiple macules and patches were observed on face, upper extremities, chest, and trunk. (B): Improved skin lesions following 4 weeks of treatment (arm 2; EGF 1 ppm).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Histopathological findings of Figure 1. (A): Dense dermal infiltration of neutrophils and lymphohistiocytes and spongiosis of epidermis with focal pustular scab formation. (B): Markedly reduced inflammatory cell infiltration after 4 weeks of treatment (arm 2; EGF 1 ppm).
Figure 3
Figure 3
A 54‐year‐old female patient with colon cancer treated with cetuximab‐based regimen. (A): Acneiform papules and pustules, and crusts on the face. (B): Improved skin lesions following 4 weeks of treatment (arm 3; EGF 20 ppm).

References

    1. Normanno N, De Luca A, Bianco C et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling in cancer. Gene 2006;366:2–16.
    1. Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S et al. Gefitinib or carboplatin‐paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 2009;361:947–957.
    1. Sequist LV, Yang JC, Yamamoto N et al. Phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:3327–3334.
    1. Zhou C, Wu YL, Chen G et al. Erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first‐line treatment for patients with advanced EGFR mutation‐positive non‐small‐cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG‐0802): A multicentre, open‐label, randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:735–742.
    1. Peeters M, Oliner KS, Price TJ et al. Analysis of KRAS/NRAS mutations in a phase III study of panitumumab with FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI alone as second‐line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2015;21:5469–5479.
    1. Sorich MJ, Wiese MD, Rowland A et al. Extended RAS mutations and anti‐EGFR monoclonal antibody survival benefit in metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta‐analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Oncol 2015;26:13–21.
    1. Bonner JA, Harari PM, Giralt J et al. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer: 5‐year survival data from a phase 3 randomised trial, and relation between cetuximab‐induced rash and survival. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:21–28.
    1. Pastore S, Mascia F, Mariani V et al. The epidermal growth factor receptor system in skin repair and inflammation. J Invest Dermatol 2008;128:1365–1374.
    1. Yano S, Kondo K, Yamaguchi M et al. Distribution and function of EGFR in human tissue and the effect of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibition. Anticancer Res 2003;23:3639–3650.
    1. Holcmann M, Sibilia M. Mechanisms underlying skin disorders induced by EGFR inhibitors. Mol Cell Oncol 2015;2:e1004969.
    1. Kozuki T. Skin problems and EGFR‐tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2016;46:291–298.
    1. Melosky B, Burkes R, Rayson D et al. Management of skin rash during EGFR‐targeted monoclonal antibody treatment for gastrointestinal malignancies: Canadian recommendations. Curr Oncol 2009;16:16–26.
    1. Chan A, Cameron MC, Garden B et al. A systematic review of patient‐reported outcome instruments of dermatologic adverse events associated with targeted cancer therapies. Support Care Cancer 2015;23:2231–2244.
    1. Rosen AC, Case EC, Dusza SW et al. Impact of dermatologic adverse events on quality of life in 283 cancer patients: A questionnaire study in a dermatology referral clinic. Am J Clin Dermatol 2013;14:327–333.
    1. Brown GL, Nanney LB, Griffen J et al. Enhancement of wound healing by topical treatment with epidermal growth factor. N Engl J Med 1989;321:76–79.
    1. Bhora FY, Dunkin BJ, Batzri S et al. Effect of growth factors on cell proliferation and epithelialization in human skin. J Surg Res 1995;59:236–244.
    1. Wu HG, Song SY, Kim YS et al. Therapeutic effect of recombinant human epidermal growth factor (RhEGF) on mucositis in patients undergoing radiotherapy, with or without chemotherapy, for head and neck cancer: A double‐blind placebo‐controlled prospective phase 2 multi‐institutional clinical trial. Cancer 2009;115:3699–3708.
    1. Kong M, Hong SE. Topical use of recombinant human epidermal growth factor (EGF)‐based cream to prevent radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients: A single‐blind randomized preliminary study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013;14:4859–4864.
    1. Kang HC, Ahn SD, Choi DH et al. The safety and efficacy of EGF‐based cream for the prevention of radiotherapy‐induced skin injury: Results from a multicenter observational study. Radiat Oncol J 2014;32:156–162.
    1. Hwang IG, Kang JH, Oh SY et al. Phase II trial of epidermal growth factor ointment for patients with erlotinib‐related skin effects. Support Care Cancer 2016;24:301–309.
    1. Chren MM, Lasek RJ, Sahay AP et al. Measurement properties of Skindex‐16: a brief quality‐of‐life measure for patients with skin diseases. J Cutan Med Surg 2001;5:105–110.
    1. Nam JM. A simple approximation for calculating sample sizes for detecting linear trend in proportions. Biometrics 1987;43:701–705.
    1. Chren MM. Interpretation of quality‐of‐life scores. J Invest Dermatol 2010;130:1207–1209.
    1. Whited JD, Warshaw EM, Edison KE et al. Effect of store and forward teledermatology on quality of life: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA Dermatol 2013;149:584–591.
    1. Laato M, Niinikoski J, Lebel L et al. Stimulation of wound healing by epidermal growth factor. A dose‐dependent effect. Ann Surg 1986;203:379–381.
    1. Buckley A, Davidson JM, Kamerath CD et al. Epidermal growth factor increases granulation tissue formation dose dependently. J Surg Res 1987;43:322–328.
    1. Perez‐Soler R, Delord JP, Halpern A et al. HER1/EGFR inhibitor‐associated rash: Future directions for management and investigation outcomes from the HER1/EGFR inhibitor rash management forum. The Oncologist 2005;10:345–356.
    1. Belum VR, Marchetti MA, Dusza SW et al. A prospective, randomized, double‐blinded, split‐face/chest study of prophylactic topical dapsone 5% gel versus moisturizer for the prevention of cetuximab‐induced acneiform rash. J Am Acad Dermatol 2017;77:577–579.
    1. Lacouture ME, Anadkat MJ, Bensadoun RJ et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of EGFR inhibitor‐associated dermatologic toxicities. Support Care Cancer 2011;19:1079–1095.
    1. Thatcher N, Nicolson M, Groves RW et al. Expert consensus on the management of erlotinib‐associated cutaneous toxicity in the U.K. The Oncologist 2009;14:840–847.
    1. Hachisuka J, Doi K, Moroi Y et al. Successful treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor‐induced periungual inflammation with adapalene. Case Rep Dermatol 2011;3:130–136.
    1. Pinta F, Ponzetti A, Spadi R et al. Pilot clinical trial on the efficacy of prophylactic use of vitamin K1‐based cream (Vigorskin) to prevent cetuximab‐induced skin rash in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2014;13:62–67.
    1. Hofheinz RD, Lorenzen S, Trojan J et al. EVITA‐a double‐blind, vehicle‐controlled, randomized phase II trial of vitamin K1 cream as prophylaxis for cetuximab‐induced skin toxicity. Ann Oncol 2018;29:1010–1015.
    1. Deplanque G, Gervais R, Vergnenegre A et al. Doxycycline for prevention of erlotinib‐induced rash in patients with non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of first‐line chemotherapy: A randomized, open‐label trial. J Am Acad Dermatol 2016;74:1077–1085.
    1. Arrieta O, Vega‐Gonzalez MT, Lopez‐Macias D et al. Randomized, open‐label trial evaluating the preventive effect of tetracycline on afatinib induced‐skin toxicities in non‐small cell lung cancer patients. Lung Cancer 2015;88:282–288.
    1. Jatoi A, Rowland K, Sloan JA et al. Tetracycline to prevent epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor‐induced skin rashes: Results of a placebo‐controlled trial from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (N03CB). Cancer 2008;113:847–853.
    1. Jatoi A, Dakhil SR, Sloan JA et al. Prophylactic tetracycline does not diminish the severity of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor‐induced rash: Results from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (Supplementary N03CB). Support Care Cancer 2011;19:1601–1607.
    1. Kobayashi Y, Komatsu Y, Yuki S et al. Randomized controlled trial on the skin toxicity of panitumumab in Japanese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: HGCSG1001 study; J‐STEPP. Future Oncol 2015;11:617–627.
    1. Lacouture ME, Mitchell EP, Piperdi B et al. Skin toxicity evaluation protocol with panitumumab (STEPP), a phase II, open‐label, randomized trial evaluating the impact of a pre‐emptive skin treatment regimen on skin toxicities and quality of life in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1351–1357.
    1. Melosky B, Anderson H, Burkes RL et al. Pan Canadian rash trial: A randomized phase III trial evaluating the impact of a prophylactic skin treatment regimen on epidermal growth factor receptor‐tyrosine kinase inhibitor‐induced skin toxicities in patients with metastatic lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:810–815.
    1. Scope A, Agero AL, Dusza SW et al. Randomized double‐blind trial of prophylactic oral minocycline and topical tazarotene for cetuximab‐associated acne‐like eruption. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:5390–5396.
    1. Petrelli F, Borgonovo K, Cabiddu M et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for skin toxicity induced by antiepidermal growth factor receptor agents: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Br J Dermatol 2016;175:1166–1174.
    1. Joshi SS, Ortiz S, Witherspoon JN et al. Effects of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor‐induced dermatologic toxicities on quality of life. Cancer 2010;116:3916–3923.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir