Assessment of the quality of life of oncological patients with skin toxicity depending on telemedicine technologies

Relevance. Approximately 90–100% of patients have skin toxicity, which manifests itself in the form of acne-like rashes (papulo-pustular rash), paronychia, hair changes, xerosis, itching. Skin manifestations cause psychological, emotional and physical discomfort, which may be the reason for dose reduction or discontinuation of treatment, and may reduce the effectiveness of antitumor therapy. The use of modern telemedicine systems, such as online consultations and remote monitoring, are designed to make life easier for patients and are now increasingly available and in demand among the general population.

The aim of the study. Assessment of the quality of life in cancer patients receiving EGFR inhibitors, depending on the use of remote consultations and remote monitoring.

Materials and methods. 140 cancer patients were included in the study. All patients were divided into two groups: in group 1 (study group) n=70, the mobile application «My Health» was used for online-consultation with a dermatologist, in group 2 (comparison group) n=70, offline consultations were used. During the consultations, skin toxicity was assessed using CTCAE scales version 5.0. To analyze the level of quality of life, a questionnaire of the dermatological quality of life index (DLQI) was used, which patients of each group filled out on the day of the start of the study, then after 4 weeks.

Results. In patients of the first group, there was a positive dynamic in the state of the skin process compared with the initial indicators. There was a statistically significant improvement in the quality of life, a decrease in the average score for all indicators. In patients of the second group, the positive dynamics of the skin process was not so obvious, as evidenced by the results of the questionnaire. There was a statistically significant strong direct correlation between the value of the results of DLQI and the severity of the disease (rs=0.721 p <0.001).

Conclusion. Skin toxicity is a complex interdisciplinary problem that requires an integrated approach between oncologists and dermatologists. Remote monitoring is an accessible form of communication between a doctor and a patient, which contributes to the timely control of skin toxicity in cancer patients receiving EGFR inhibitors.

1. Tischer B, Huber R, Kraemer M. et al. Dermatologic events from EGFR inhibitors: the issue of the missing patient voice. Supportive care in cancer: official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. 2017; 25: 651–660. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-016-3419-4

2. 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. The Lancet Oncology. 2010; 11: 21–28. DOI: 10.1016/S1470–2045(09)703110

3. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL. et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021; 71: 209–249. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660

4. Berghmans T, Durieux V, Hendriks LEL. et al. Immunotherapy: From Advanced NSCLC to Early Stages, an Evolving Concept. Frontiers in medicine. 7. Epub ahead of print 24 March 2020. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2020.00090

5. Wissinger E, Griebsch I, Lungershausen J. et al. The Economic Burden of Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014; 32: 865. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-014-0169-3

6. Vigneswaran N, Williams MD. Epidemiological Trends in Head and Neck Cancer and Aids in Diagnosis. Oral and maxillofacial surgery clinics of North America. 2014; 26: 123. DOI: 10.1016/j.coms.2014.01.001

7. Fitzmaurice C, Abate D, Abbasi N. et al. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-Adjusted life-years for 29 cancer groups, 1990 to 2017: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncology. 2019; 5: 1749–1768. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2996

8. Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I. et al. Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. International journal of cancer. 2019; 144: 1941–1953. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.31937

9. Santuray RT, Johnson DE, Grandis JR. New Therapies in Head and Neck Cancer. Trends in cancer. 2018; 4: 385–396. DOI: 10.1016/j.trecan.2018.03.006

10. Patel B, Saba NF. Current aspects and future considerations of EGFR inhibition in locally advanced and recurrent metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancers. 13. Epub ahead of print 2021. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13143545

11. Dokala A, Thakur SS. Extracellular region of epidermal growth factor receptor: a potential target for anti-EGFR drug discovery. Oncogene. 2017; 36: 2337–2344. DOI: 10.1038/onc.2016.393

12. Tomas A, Futter CE, Eden ER. EGF receptor trafficking: consequences for signaling and cancer. Trends Cell Biol. 2014; 24: 26–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.tcb.2013.11.002

13. Wu NL, Huang DY, Hsieh SL. et al. Decoy receptor 3 is involved in epidermal keratinocyte commitment to terminal differentiation via EGFR and PKC activation. Exp Mol Med. 2022; 54: 542–551. DOI: 10.1038/s12276-022-00762-8

14. Joly-Tonetti N, Ondet T, Monshouwer M. et al. EGFR inhibitors switch keratinocytes from a proliferative to a differentiative phenotype affecting epidermal development and barrier function. BMC Cancer. 2021. Jan 5; 21 (1): 5. DOI: 10.1186/S12885020076855. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07685-5

15. Yin X, Zhao Z, Yin Y. et al. Adverse event profiles of epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Transl Sci. 2021; 14: 919–933. DOI: 10.1111/cts.12957

16. Sun W, Li J. Skin Toxicities with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Cancer Invest. 2019; 37: 253–264. DOI: 10.1080/07357907.2019.1634089

17. Wei F, Shin D, Cai X. Incidence, risk and prognostic role of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor-induced skin rash in biliary cancer: a meta-analysis. International journal of clinical oncology. 2018; 23: 443–451. DOI: 10.1007/s10147-017-1231-x

18. Paul T, Schumann C, Rüdiger S. et al. Cytokine regulation by epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor associated skin toxicity in cancer patients. Eur. J. Cancer. 2014; 50: 1855–1863. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.04.026

19. Muraro E, Fanetti G, Lupato V. et al. Cetuximab in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: Biological mechanisms involved in efficacy, toxicity and resistance. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2021 Aug; 164: 103424. DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103424

20. Bar-Ad V, Zhang QE, Harari PM. et al. Correlation between the severity of cetuximab-induced skin rash and clinical outcome for head and neck cancer patients: The XXXX experience. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics. 2016; 95: 1346. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.03.011

21. Chu C-Y, Choi J, Eaby-Sandy B. et al. Osimertinib: A Novel Dermatologic Adverse Event Profile in Patients with Lung Cancer. Oncologist. 2018; 23: 891–899. DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2017–0582

22. 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. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2010; 28: 1351–1357. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.7828

23. Yamazaki N, Oomuku Y, Mishiro I. et al. Pre-emptive skin treatments to prevent skin toxicity caused by anti-EGFR antibody: the real-world evidence in Japan. DOI: 10.2217/fon2018–0379

24. 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 – PubMed. Future Oncol. 2015; 11: 617–27. DOI: 10.2217/fon.14.251

25. Koroleva I.A., Bolotina L.V., Gladkov O.A. et al. Practical recommendations for the drug treatment of dermatological reactions in patients receiving antitumor drug therapy. Malignant tumors: Practical recommendations RUSSCO. 2022; 12: 101–122. DOI: 10.18027/2224-5057-2022-12-3s2-101-122

26. Du R, Yang H, Zhou H. et al. The relationship between medication literacy and skin adverse reactions in non-small-cell lung cancer patients undergoing targeted EGFR-TKI therapy. BMC Cancer. 2022; 22: 1–13. DOI: 10.1186/s12885–022–09599-w

27. FINLAY AY, KHAN GK. Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI)-a simple practical measure for routine clinical use. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1994; 19: 210–216. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2230.1994.tb01167.x

28. Hirayama K. Relationships between quality of life and skin toxicities of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors in cancer patients: A literature review. Japan Academy of Nursing Science. 2020; 1–18. DOI: 10.1111/jjns.12321

29. Yamaguchi K, Ando M, Ooki A. et al. Quality of Life Analysis in Patients with RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated with First-Line Cetuximab Plus Chemotherapy. Clinical colorectal cancer. 2017; 16: e29–e37. DOI: 10.1016/j.clcc.2016.07.017

30. Luca R De, Lo G, Addeo R. et al. Quality of Life in Patients with Severe Skin Reactions in Course of First-Generation Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors Monoclonal Antibodies (Our Experience with Cetuximab). World J. Oncol. 2021; 12: 104–110. DOI: 10.14740/wjon1381

31. Clabbers JMK, Boers–Doets CB, Gelderblom H, et al. Xerosis and pruritus as major EGFRI-associated adverse events. Supportive care in cancer: official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. 2016; 24: 513–521. DOI: 10.1007/s00520-015-2781-y