Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Supportive Care in Cancer
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 8/2018

01-08-2018 | Original Article

TOXICAN: a guide for grading dermatological adverse events of cancer treatments

Authors: L. Peuvrel, J. Cassecuel, C. Bernier, G. Quéreux, M. Saint-Jean, M. Le Moigne, C. Frénard, A. Khammari, B. Dréno, Supported by GESTIM Nantes group of cutaneous adverse events induced by cancer treatments

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 8/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The dermatological toxicity of cancer treatments is frequent and sometimes debilitating. Its reference classification, the NCI-CTCAE (National Cancer Institute–Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events), is sometimes difficult to use and does not include yet the newest toxicities. Our objective was to create a guide, TOXICAN, based on the CTCAE, which is easy to use in everyday practice and which facilitates the recognition and grading of these dermatological toxicities.

Methods

This guide was developed by a working group (“GESTIM”) comprising oncodermatologists, allergists, pathologists, and researchers from Nantes University Hospital. It was based on the dermatological toxicities found in the CTCAE and adapted to daily practice. These toxicities were grouped into categories and associated with photographs of typical cases to aid recognition. A simplified grading scale derived from the CTCAE was also created. This booklet was validated by means of user evaluation, and then the Delphi consensus method.

Results

We selected 32 dermatological toxicities, including 12 created by our group, sorted into 7 categories: skin rash, dry skin/pruritus, hyperkeratotic papules, palmoplantar changes, hair and nail changes, mucosal changes, and others. Our simplified grading scale only differed from the CTCAE for one item, urticaria. Three items were modified after evaluation by the user group and 11 after application of the Delphi method.

Conclusion

The objective of our practical guide is to facilitate the use of the CTCAE for recognizing and grading dermatological toxicity of cancer treatments in order to provide optimal guidance for therapeutic adaptations. Its impact on clinical practice remains to be evaluated.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Trotti A, Colevas AD, Setser A, Rusch V, Jaques D, Budach V, Langer C, Murphy B, Cumberlin R, Coleman CN, Rubin P (2003) CTCAE v3.0: development of a comprehensive grading system for the adverse effects of cancer treatment. Semin Radiat Oncol 13(3):176–181CrossRefPubMed
2.
Atkinson TM, Li Y, Coffey CW, Sit L, Shaw M, Lavene D, Bennett AV, Fruscione M, Rogak L, Hay J, Gonen M, Schrag D, Basch E (2012) Reliability of adverse symptom event reporting by clinicians. Qual Life Res 21(7):1159–1164CrossRefPubMed
3.
Palazzi M, Tomatis S, Orlandi E, Guzzo M, Sangalli C, Potepan P, Fantini S, Bergamini C, Gavazzi C, Licitra L, Scaramellini G, Cantu G, Olmi P (2008) Effects of treatment intensification on acute local toxicity during radiotherapy for head and neck cancer: prospective observational study validating CTCAE, version 3.0, scoring system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70(2):330–337CrossRefPubMed
4.
Jiang G, Wang L, Liu H, Solbrig HR, Chute CG (2013) Building a knowledge base of severe adverse drug events based on AERS reporting data using semantic web technologies. Stud Health Technol Inform 192:496–500PubMed
5.
Bergman H, Walton T, Del Bel R, Seki JT, Rafii A, Xu W, Koren G, Shear N, Krzyzanowska MK, Howell D, Liu G (2014) Managing skin toxicities related to panitumumab. J Am Acad Dermatol 71(4):754–759CrossRefPubMed
6.
Lacouture ME, Maitland ML, Segaert S, Setser A, Baran R, Fox LP, Epstein JB, Barasch A, Einhorn L, Wagner L, West DP, Rapoport BL, Kris MG, Basch E, Eaby B, Kurtin S, Olsen EA, Chen A, Dancey JE, Trotti A (2010) A proposed EGFR inhibitor dermatologic adverse event-specific grading scale from the MASCC skin toxicity study group. Support Care Cancer 18(4):509–522CrossRefPubMed
7.
Chan A, Tan EH (2011) How well does the MESTT correlate with CTCAE scale for the grading of dermatological toxicities associated with oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors? Support Care Cancer 19(10):1667–1674CrossRefPubMed
8.
Sibaud V, Delord JP, Robert C (2015) Dermatology and anticancer therapies: practical handbook. Editions Privat, Toulouse
9.
Lynch TJ Jr, Kim ES, Eaby B, Garey J, West DP, Lacouture ME (2007) Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor-associated cutaneous toxicities: an evolving paradigm in clinical management. Oncologist 12(5):610–621CrossRefPubMed
10.
Gonzalez-Sanchis A, Vicedo-Gonzalez A, Brualla-Gonzalez L, Gordo-Partearroyo JC, Inigo-Valdenebro R, Sanchez-Carazo J, Granero-Cabanero D, Rosello-Ferrando J, Lopez-Torrecilla J (2014) Looking for complementary alternatives to CTCAE for skin toxicity in radiotherapy: quantitative determinations. Clin Transl Oncol 16(10):892–897CrossRefPubMed
11.
Liu YJ, Zhu GP, Guan XY (2012) Comparison of the NCI-CTCAE version 4.0 and version 3.0 in assessing chemoradiation-induced oral mucositis for locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Oral Oncol 48(6):554–559CrossRefPubMed
12.
Deng J, Ridner SH, Dietrich MS, Wells N, Murphy BA (2013) Assessment of external lymphedema in patients with head and neck cancer: a comparison of four scales. Oncol Nurs Forum 40(5):501–506CrossRefPubMed
13.
Eisbruch A, Rhodus N, Rosenthal D, Murphy B, Rasch C, Sonis S, Scarantino C, Brizel D (2003) How should we measure and report radiotherapy-induced xerostomia? Semin Radiat Oncol 13(3):226–234CrossRefPubMed
14.
Peuvrel L, Dreno B (2014) Dermatological toxicity associated with targeted therapies in cancer: optimal management. Am J Clin Dermatol 15(5):425–444CrossRefPubMed
15.
Lacouture ME, Anadkat MJ, Bensadoun RJ, Bryce J, Chan A, Epstein JB, Eaby-Sandy B, Murphy BA (2011) Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of EGFR inhibitor-associated dermatologic toxicities. Support Care Cancer 19(8):1079–1095CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Russo AL, Taghian AG (2013) Fat necrosis of the breast in the accelerated partial breast irradiation era: the need for a universal grading system. Breast Cancer Res Treat 140(1):1–11CrossRefPubMed
17.
Fine LM, Bernstein JA (2015) Urticaria guidelines: consensus and controversies in the European and American guidelines. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 15(6):30CrossRefPubMed
18.
Williams KW, Sharma HP (2015) Anaphylaxis and urticaria. Immunol Allergy Clin N Am 35(1):199–219CrossRef
19.
Macdonald JB, Macdonald B, Golitz LE, LoRusso P, Sekulic A (2015) Cutaneous adverse effects of targeted therapies: part I: inhibitors of the cellular membrane. J Am Acad Dermatol 72(2):203–218 quiz 219-220CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zenda S, Ota Y, Tachibana H, Ogawa H, Ishii S, Hashiguchi C, Akimoto T, Ohe Y, Uchitomi Y (2016) A prospective picture collection study for a grading atlas of radiation dermatitis for clinical trials in head-and-neck cancer patients. J Radiat Res 57(3):301–306CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Lencioni A, Hutchins L, Annis S, Chen W, Ermisoglu E, Feng Z, Mack K, Simpson K, Lane C, Topaloglu U (2015) An adverse event capture and management system for cancer studies. BMC Bioinformatics 16(Suppl 13):S6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Basch E, Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, Clauser SB, Minasian LM, Dueck AC, Mendoza TR, Hay J, Atkinson TM, Abernethy AP, Bruner DW, Cleeland CS, Sloan JA, Chilukuri R, Baumgartner P, Denicoff A, St Germain D, O'Mara AM, Chen A, Kelaghan J, Bennett AV, Sit L, Rogak L, Barz A, Paul DB, Schrag D (2014) Development of the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). J Natl Cancer Inst 106(9)
23.
Dueck AC, Mendoza TR, Mitchell SA, Reeve BB, Castro KM, Rogak LJ, Atkinson TM, Bennett AV, Denicoff AM, O'Mara AM, Li Y, Clauser SB, Bryant DM, Bearden JD 3rd, Gillis TA, Harness JK, Siegel RD, Paul DB, Cleeland CS, Schrag D, Sloan JA, Abernethy AP, Bruner DW, Minasian LM, Basch E (2015) Validity and reliability of the US National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). JAMA Oncol 1(8):1051–1059CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Hay JL, Atkinson TM, Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, Mendoza TR, Willis G, Minasian LM, Clauser SB, Denicoff A, O'Mara A, Chen A, Bennett AV, Paul DB, Gagne J, Rogak L, Sit L, Viswanath V, Schrag D, Basch E (2014) Cognitive interviewing of the US National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). Qual Life Res 23(1):257–269CrossRefPubMed
25.
Kluetz PG, Chingos DT, Basch EM, Mitchell SA (2016) Patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials: measuring symptomatic adverse events with the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 35:67–73CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
TOXICAN: a guide for grading dermatological adverse events of cancer treatments
Authors
L. Peuvrel
J. Cassecuel
C. Bernier
G. Quéreux
M. Saint-Jean
M. Le Moigne
C. Frénard
A. Khammari
B. Dréno
Supported by GESTIM Nantes group of cutaneous adverse events induced by cancer treatments
Publication date
01-08-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 8/2018
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-018-4153-x

Other articles of this Issue 8/2018

Supportive Care in Cancer 8/2018 Go to the issue

Original Article

Religious coping and death depression in Iranian patients with cancer: relationships to disease stage

Letter to the editor

Response to the response by Lahbib et al. to “Identification of appropriate and potentially avoidable emergency department referrals in a tertiary cancer care center” by Duflos et al.

Review Article

Systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety of probiotics in people with cancer

Letter to the editor

Management of radiation-induced mucosal necrosis with photobiomodulation therapy

Original Article

Guide for health professionals addressing oral care for individuals in oncological treatment based on scientific evidence

Original Article

Use of compression garments by women with lymphoedema secondary to breast cancer treatment
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits