Possibilities of remote monitoring to manage skin toxicity in oncology patients

Purpose. Analysis of the effectiveness of remote monitoring in the management of skin toxicity in oncology patients.

Materials and methods. A comparative study of 2 cohorts of oncology patients with skin toxicity receiving supportive care through remote monitoring using the PSP “Healthy Skin” and outpatient consultations. Nonparametric statistical methods were used with a significance level of p<0.05.

Results. A comparative analysis of 150 patients divided into 2 equal groups showed the effectiveness of using the remote monitoring (group 1) in the form of a reliable decrease in median BSA (%) by 67 %, 5D itching scale by 65 %, DLQI by 70 % compared to 10 %, 22 %, 20 % in group 2, respectively, over 4 weeks of the study. In group 2, deterioration of the skin condition was noted in 13.3 % of patients, 9 % of patients underwent a reduction in the dose of the anticancer therapy, 5 % had a break, while in group 1 such episodes were not noted due to the stability of the condition. Positive dynamics in the form of a decrease in the severity of skin toxicity was noted in 48 % of cases in group 1 and in 10 % of cases in group 2. An assessment of patient satisfaction with the use of the application (B 2C (business-to-consumer) analysis) revealed satisfaction in 91.4 % of respondents.

Conclusion. The availability and effectiveness of the use of the PSP «Healthy Skin» will ensure timely supportive care, significantly reduce the severity of skin toxicity and improve the quality of life in oncology patients.

1. Lacouture ME, Sibaud V, Anadkat MJ, Kaffenberger B, Leventhal J, Guindon K, Abou-Alfa G. Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated with Selective Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors: Overview, Prevention, and Management Guidelines. Oncologist. 2021.(26): 316–326. doi: 10.1002/onco.13552.

2. Yin Q, Wu L, Han L, Zheng X, Tong R, Li L, Bai L, Bian Y. Immune-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors: a review. Front Immunol. 2023. (14):1167975. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1167975.

3. Kafatos G, Dube S, Burdon P, Demonty G, Flinois A, Leclerc M, Lowe K, Feudjo-Tepie M, Segaert S. Management of EGFR Inhibitor-induced Skin Toxicity and Factors Impacting Patients’ Adherence to Skin Toxicity Treatment: Health Care Provider and Patient Surveys in European Oncology Centers. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2020. (2):100–108. doi: 10.1016/j.clcc.2020.01.001.

4. VarlamovaS. E., AntimonikN. Yu., KozlovaN. M., MakeevYu. M., BerdovB. A., BolotinaL. V., VladimirovaL. Yu., FeoktistovaP. S., OrlovaE. V., PtushkinV. V. Domestic experience in the prevention and treatment of skin toxicity manifestations in patients with mCRC receiving EGFR inhibitors, using panitumumab as an example. Malignant tumors. 2013. (7): 42–51. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18027/2224-5057-2013-3-42-50

5. Boone SL, Rademaker A, Liu D, Pfeiffer C, Mauro DJ, Lacouture ME. Impact and management of skin toxicity associated with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy: survey results. Oncology. 2007.(72):152–9. doi: 10.1159/000112795.

6. Polonskaya A. S., Shatokhina E. A., Kruglova L. S. Dermatological adverse events of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors: a modern view of an interdisciplinary problem. Head and Neck Tumors. 2021. (4):97–109. (In Russ.). doi:10.17650/2222-1468-2021-11-4-97-109.

7. Shatokhina E. A., Turkina A. G., Kruglova L. S. Dermatological adverse events of Bcr-Abl tyrazine kinase inhibitors. Hematology and transfusology.– 2020.– Volume 65, No. 2.-P.154–173. (In Russ.).

8. Fadeeva E. V. Oncological care in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Sociological science and social practice. 2021. (1):61–73. (In Russ.). doi: 10.19181/snsp.2021.9.1.7874

9. Przhedetskaya N. V., Przhedetsky Yu. V. Digitalization as a basis for providing oncology services in Russia. Bulletin of the Rostov State University of Economics (RINH). 2020. (1): 51–55. (In Russ.).

10. Gancev Sh. Kh., Menshikov K. V. Oncology service in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. Creative surgery and oncology. 2020. (3): 233–240. (In Russ.). doi.org/10.24060/2076-3093-202010-3-233-240

11. Sirotina A. S., Kobyakova O. S., Deev I. A., Boykov V. A., Baranovskaya S. V., Shibalkov I. P., Dmitriev S. V. Remote monitoring of health status. Analytical review. Social aspects of population health. 2022. (2). (In Russ.).

12. Dmitriev V., Komar P., Shaderkin I., Ledyaeva A., Bolotova S. Remote patient monitoring systems. 2021. Evercare.ru [Internet]. https://evercare.ru/news/sistemy-udalennogo-monitoringa-pacientov

13. Ehsani F, Hosseini M. Consumer Segmentation Based on Location and Timing Dimensions Using Big Data from Business-to-Customer Retailing Marketplaces. Big Data. 2023 Oct 30. doi: 10.1089/big.2022.0307.