Evaluation of a novel skin care product for the management of chemotherapy-related dermatologic toxicities: A quasi-experimental study.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the efficacy of a novel skincare product for the management of chemotherapy-related dermatological toxicities. METHODS: A monocentric, prospective, interventional, open-label, pretest-posttest, single-group study with cancer patients receiving chemotherapy (n = 100) was set up. All enrolled patients applied the emollient daily to their face and body for three weeks. The severity of the skin reactions was evaluated by a researcher using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0 at baseline and end of the trial. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) included the frequency and severity of skin symptoms (Numerical rating scale, NRS), quality of life (QoL; Skindex-16 and Dermatology Life Quality Index), Patient Benefit Index (PBI), and treatment satisfaction. PROs were collected at baseline, weekly, and at the end of the trial. RESULTS: According to the CTCAE and NRS, the novel emollient significantly improved the severity and frequency of xerosis and pruritus (Ps ≤ .001). A significant reduction in the NRS score for frequency of erythema was measured (p < .001). The frequency and severity of burning and pain did not change. Regarding the patients' QoL, no beneficial effect of the skin care product was measurable. 44% of the patients experienced at least one patient-relevant treatment benefit. 87% of the patients were satisfied with the emollient and would recommend it. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the novel emollient significantly reduced chemotherapy-induced skin toxicity, more specifically xerosis and pruritus without hampering patient's QoL. Future research is needed to make definite conclusions using a study design including a control group and a long-term follow-up.

Assessment of Physician's Systemic Treatment Preferences for Patients with Advanced Desmoid-Type Fibromatosis: Experience-Based Medicine in the Absence of High-Level Evidence.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of advanced desmoid-type fibromatosis (DF) is poorly standardized and primarily based on physician's choice. We assessed systemic treatment preferences for advanced DF among European experts, with the aim to define a control treatment for prospective randomized trials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A structured questionnaire was sent to a group of physicians involved in DF treatment. RESULTS: 54 experts from 14 countries (Europe, Israel) responded. Disease progression and failure of local therapy were typical indications for systemic therapy. Treatment preferences for patients with sporadic DF versus DF associated with Gardner's syndrome were similar. Physicians use at least 5 different classes of drugs (27 agents). The most frequently used compounds were anti-estrogens and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs), in combination or as single agents. The second and third most common systemic approach was chemotherapy based on methotrexate or an anthracycline. Trial activity was limited to 1 country/1 multicentric study. CONCLUSIONS: There is an unmet medical need for evidence-based treatments and well-designed studies. Clinical trials with systemic agents should ideally select a homogeneous DF population with advanced, progressive, ideally symptomatic disease and/or functional impairment after failure of wait-and-see and/or local treatments, and should be randomized, with placebo, anti-estrogens, NSAIDs, or physician's choice as comparator.

Single-Centre Experience of Systemic Treatment with Vincristine, Ifosfamide, and Doxorubicin Alternating with Etoposide, Ifosfamide, and Cisplatin in Adult Patients with Ewing Sarcoma.

The treatment of Ewing sarcoma (ES) in adult patients requires a multidisciplinary approach. Systemic therapy remains an important component of clinical management of this disease. ES is extremely rare in adult patients. Due to the rarity of the disease, no standard of care in terms of chemotherapy for the adult population exists, and the level of evidence for individual agents or some multidrug combinations is limited. Most regimens that are used in both adults and children include anthracyclines, etoposide, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and ifosfamide. In this report, we describe our experience with the alternating use of triple combination therapies based on vincristine, ifosfamide, and doxorubicin (VIA) and an etoposide, ifosfamide, and cisplatin combination (VIP). We retrospectively evaluated the response rates, outcome, and tolerance of adult patients (n = 64) treated with VIA/VIP between 1990 and 2014. The patients included were treated with perioperative chemotherapy (53.1% neoadjuvant therapy and 17.2% adjuvant therapy) or had synchronous metastases at diagnosis (29.7%). Five-year overall survival rate was 52.2% for all patients, 72.2% for patients with localized disease, and 5.3% in patients with synchronous metastases. Overall response rate (ORR) was 37% after 2 cycles of VIA and 2 cycles of VIP. There were no patients with progressive disease (PD).

The accuracy of positron emission tomography in the detection of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder.

We investigated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in 170 cases with suspected or biopsy-proven posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder. All solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients who underwent an 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scan between 2003 and 2010 in our center for the indication posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder, were retrospectively reviewed and results were compared with tissue biopsy whenever possible. One hundred and seventy positron emission tomography scans in 150 patients were eligible for evaluation. In 45 cases, the patient had a biopsy-confirmed posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder before positron emission tomography scanning and positron emission tomography was performed for staging purposes. In the remaining 125 cases, positron emission tomography was performed to differentiate between posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder and other diseases. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-uptake was quantitatively expressed by calculation of maximum and mean standardized uptake value in the most intense lesion or, in the absence of attenuation corrected positron emission tomography scans, by comparing uptake in target lesion to liver and mediastinal uptake. We found an overall sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 89%, positive predictive value of 91% and negative predictive value of 87% for posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder detection by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. In a subanalysis of the 125 scans performed for differentiating posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder from other diseases, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 90%, 89%, 85% and 93%, respectively. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-uptake in posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder was generally high with a median mean and maximum standardized uptake value of 9.0 (range 2.0-18.6) and 17.4 (range 2.6-26.4). Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder often had an atypical presentation on positron emission tomography with high incidence of extranodal involvement. In conclusion, from these data, we can conclude that 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography is highly sensitive for detecting posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder and has an excellent ability to differentiate posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder from non-malignant diseases.