RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is a dose-limiting side effect of capecitabine. Celecoxib prevents HFS by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) that is upregulated because of the underlying associated inflammation. However, systemic side effects of celecoxib have limited routine prescription. Topical diclofenac inhibits COX-2 locally with minimal risk of systemic adverse events. Therefore, we conducted this study to assess the efficacy of topical diclofenac in the prevention of capecitabine-induced HFS. METHODS: In this single-site phase III randomized double-blind trial, we enrolled patients with breast or GI cancer who were planned to receive capecitabine-based treatment. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive topical diclofenac or placebo gel for 12 weeks or until the development of HFS, whichever occurred earlier. The primary end point was the incidence of grade 2 or 3 HFS (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5), which was compared between the two groups using simple logistic regression. RESULTS: In total, 264 patients were randomly assigned to receive topical diclofenac gel (n = 131) or placebo (n = 133). Grade 2 or 3 HFS was observed in 3.8% of participants in the diclofenac group compared with 15.0% in the placebo group (absolute difference, 11.2%; 95% CI, 4.3 to 18.1; P = .003). Grade 1-3 HFS was lower in the diclofenac group than in the placebo group (6.1% v 18.1%; absolute risk difference, 11.9%; 95% CI, 4.1 to 19.6). Capecitabine dose reductions because of HFS were less frequent in the diclofenac group (3.8%) than in the placebo group (13.5%; absolute risk difference, 9.7%; 95% CI, 3.0 to 16.4). CONCLUSION: Topical diclofenac prevented HFS in patients receiving capecitabine. This trial supports the use of topical diclofenac to prevent capecitabine-associated HFS.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Serial patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements in clinical practice are associated with a better quality of life and survival. Recording electronic PROs using smartphones is an efficient way to implement this. We aimed to assess the feasibility of the electronically filled Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (e-ESAS) scale in the lower-middle-income country (LMIC) setting. METHODS: Baseline clinical features and conventional paper-based ESAS (p-ESAS) were collected in newly diagnosed patients with solid organ tumors. Text message link was sent to these patients for filling e-ESAS. ESAS was categorized into physical, psychological, and total symptom domains. Scores were divided into none to mild (0-3) and moderate to severe (4-10). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to determine the correlation between p-ESAS and e-ESAS. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent factors affecting symptom burden. RESULTS: Of 1,160 participants who filled out p-ESAS, 595 completed both e-ESAS and p-ESAS questionnaires and were included in the final analysis. Moderate to severe physical, psychological, and total symptom scores were seen in 39.8%, 40%, and 39% of participants. Tiredness and anxiety were the most common physical and psychological symptoms, respectively. ICCs between the p-ESAS and e-ESAS varied between 0.75 and 0.9. Total symptom scores were independently predicted by metastatic disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.26 to 2.67; P = .001) and a higher level of education (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.72; P = .001). CONCLUSION: Paper-based and electronically filled ESASs have good intraobserver reliability across individual symptoms and domain scores in a representative cohort at a tertiary care institute in the LMIC. This may help us incorporate e-ESAS in routine clinical care in the real-world setting with financial, infrastructural, and manpower limitations.
