Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Prophylactic strategies for hand-foot syndrome/skin reaction associated with systemic cancer treatment: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Pandy, Jessa Gilda P; Franco, Paula Isabel G; Li, Rubi K.
Afiliação
  • Pandy JGP; Cancer Institute, Section of Medical Oncology, St. Luke's Medical Center, Quezon City, Philippines. jgpacispandy@gmail.com.
  • Franco PIG; Cancer Institute, Section of Medical Oncology, St. Luke's Medical Center, Quezon City, Philippines.
  • Li RK; Cancer Institute, Section of Medical Oncology, St. Luke's Medical Center, Quezon City, Philippines.
Support Care Cancer ; 30(11): 8655-8666, 2022 Nov.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35655045
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) and hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) are common toxicities of several systemic cancer treatments. Multikinase inhibitor-induced HFSR is distinguished from chemotherapy-induced HFS in terms of pathogenesis, symptomatology, and treatment. Multiple trials have investigated the efficacy of preventive strategies such as COX-inhibitors, pyridoxine, and urea cream; however, no consensus has been made. This meta-analysis evaluated data from high-quality trials to provide strong evidence in forming recommendations to prevent systemic cancer therapy-induced HFS/HFSR.

METHODS:

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, clinical trials databases, and hand searching were utilized to identify randomized trials (RCTs) investigating prophylactic strategies for HFS/HFSR in cancer patients receiving systemic treatment. Trials published until August 2021 were included. Using the random effects model, pooled odds ratios were calculated for rates of all-grade and severe HFS/HFSR. Subgroup analysis based on type of cancer treatment given was done.

RESULTS:

Sixteen RCTs were included (N=2814). For all-grade HFS/HFSR, celecoxib (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.85, p=0.009) and urea cream (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.39-0.60, p<0.00001) both showed statistically significant risk reduction. Celecoxib was effective in preventing HFS in patients who received capecitabine (50.5% vs 65%, p=0.05), while urea cream was effective in both capecitabine HFS (22.3% vs 39.5%, p=0.02) and sorafenib-induced HFSR (54.9% vs 71.4%, p<0.00001). Pyridoxine at higher doses showed a trend towards benefit in preventing all grade HFS (69.6% vs 74.1%, p=0.23).

CONCLUSIONS:

Urea cream and celecoxib are both effective in preventing HFS/HFSR in patients receiving systemic cancer treatment. Particularly, celecoxib is more effective in preventing all-grade capecitabine-induced HFS, while urea cream shows more benefit in preventing moderate to severe sorafenib-induced HFSR. Studies investigating optimal dosing for celecoxib and urea cream are recommended. There is inadequate evidence to make recommendations regarding pyridoxine.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Contexto em Saúde: 1_ASSA2030 / 2_ODS3 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Síndrome Mão-Pé / Neoplasias Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Guideline / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Support Care Cancer Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Contexto em Saúde: 1_ASSA2030 / 2_ODS3 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Síndrome Mão-Pé / Neoplasias Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Guideline / Risk_factors_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Support Care Cancer Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article