These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Prophylactic strategies for hand-foot syndrome/skin reaction associated with systemic cancer treatment: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
    Author: Pandy JGP, Franco PIG, Li RK.
    Journal: Support Care Cancer; 2022 Nov; 30(11):8655-8666. PubMed ID: 35655045.
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]