Prophylactic strategies for hand-foot syndrome/skin reaction associated with systemic cancer treatment: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

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.

Triple negative breast cancer and platinum-based systemic treatment: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents 15-20% of breast cancers. Due to its heterogeneity and high rates of relapse, there is a need to optimize treatment efficacy. Platinum chemotherapy is still controversial and currently not recommended as first-line treatment for TNBC. Recent studies have shown promising activity of this regimen. This study was done to evaluate the effect of platinum chemotherapy on pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant treatment for early TNBC and progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic TNBC. METHODS: A systematic search of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Clinical trials databases and hand search were done to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of platinum-based chemotherapy in adults with TNBC. Studies were appraised using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Using the random effects model, pooled Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pCR, and Hazard Ratios (HRs) with 95%CI for PFS were analyzed. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs were included (N = 2946). Platinum-based chemotherapy showed pCR benefit of 40%vs27% (OR1.75,95% CI 1.46-2.62,p < 0.0001) in the neo-adjuvant setting. Subgroup analysis showed increased pCR rates (44.6%vs27.8%) with platinum plus taxane regimen (p < 0.0001). In metastatic TNBC, three RCTs were analyzed (N = 531), platinum treatment did not show PFS advantage (HR1.16,95%CI 0.90-1.49,p = 0.24). CONCLUSION: Platinum chemotherapy is associated with increased pCR rates in TNBC, hence it is a viable option for patients in the neoadjuvant setting. Subgroup analysis showed that the combination of platinum and taxanes (Carboplatin/Paclitaxel) improved pCR. However, no PFS advantage was seen in metastatic TNBC. Given the current conflicting data in metastatic TNBC, further exploration with additional powered studies is needed.