Prophylactic strategies for hand-foot syndrome/skin reaction associated with systemic cancer treatment: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- PMID: 35655045
- DOI: 10.1007/s00520-022-07175-3
Prophylactic strategies for hand-foot syndrome/skin reaction associated with systemic cancer treatment: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
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.
Keywords: Cancer; Celecoxib; Hand-foot syndrome; Meta-analysis; Pyridoxine; Urea cream.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
References
-
- Yap Y, Kwok L, Syn N et al (2017) Predictors of hand-foot syndrome and pyridoxine for prevention of capecitabine–induced hand-foot syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 3(11):1538–1545. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.1269 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Nikolaou V, Syrigos K, Saif MW (2016) Incidence and implications of chemotherapy related hand-foot syndrome. Expert Opin Drug Saf 15(12):1625–1633. https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2016.1238067 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Degen A, Alter M, Schenck F et al (2010) The hand-foot-syndrome associated with medical tumor therapy - classification and management. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 8(9):652–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1610-0387.2010.07449.x - DOI - PubMed
-
- Macedo LT, Lima JP, dos Santos LV, Sasse AD (2014) Prevention strategies for chemotherapy-induced hand-foot syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomised trials. Support Care Cancer 22(6):1585–1593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2129-z - DOI - PubMed
-
- Yadav N, Madke B, Kar S, Prasad K (2015) Liposomal doxorubicin-induced palmoplantar erythrodysthesia syndrome. Indian Dermatol Online J 6(5):366–368. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-5178.164488 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical