|
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
|
|
Design
|
Phase II, open-label, randomized trial
N= 95
|
|
Objective
|
To examine differences between pre-emptive and reactive skin treatment for specific skin toxicities in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) for any epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor |
|
Study Groups
|
Pre-emptive (n= 48)
Reactive (n= 47)
|
|
Inclusion Criteria
|
Age 18 years or older with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum with at least one unidimensional measurable lesion ≥ 20 mm (using magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography [CT] scan) or ≥ 10 mm (using a spiral CT scan) that could not be cured by surgical resection; had disease progressoin or unacceptable toxicity with first-line treatment containing fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for mCRC; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1; adequate hematologic, renal, metabolic, and hepatic function |
|
Exclusion Criteria
|
Irinotecan treatment, anti-EGFR therapy or vaccine treatment for mCRC, incidence of pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or any other significant thromboembolic event within 8 weeks before randomization |
|
Methods
|
Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive pre-emptive skin treatment using skin moisturizer or sunscreen during anytime of the treatment, 1% hydrocortisone cream applied topically at bedtime, and doxycycline 100 mg BID; or reactive treatment after skin toxicity develops which consisted of any treatments the investigator deemed necessary for the management of emergent skin toxicity and could be adminsitered at any time during weeks 1 to 6. Pre-emptive treatment was initiated one day before administration of the first panitumumab dose and continued through weeks 1 to 6. The chemotherapy regimen consisted of panitumumab 6 mg/kg every 2 weeks with FOLFIRI chemotherapy at 9 mg/kg every 3 weeks with irinotecan chemotherapy.
|
|
Duration
|
Follow-up: 7 weeks |
|
Outcome Measures
|
Primary: incidence of protocol-specified ≥ grade 2 skin toxicities during the 6-week treatment period |
|
Baseline Characteristics
|
|
Pre-emptive (n= 48)
|
Reactive (n= 47)
|
|
|
Age, years, median [range]
|
60 [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84] |
61 [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86] |
|
|
Male
|
67% |
55% |
|
|
ECOG performance
0
1
2
|
71%
25%
4%
|
64%
36%
0
|
|
|
Primary tumor type
Colon
Rectal
|
71%
29%
|
60%
40%
|
|
|
No. of metastatic sites
1
> 1
|
38%
63%
|
36%
64%
|
|
|
Patients receiving chemotherapy
Every 2 weeks
Every 3 weeks
|
58%
42%
|
57%
43%
|
|
|
Results
|
Endpoint
|
Pre-emptive (n= 48)
|
Reactive (n= 47)
|
Odds ratio (95% confidence interval [CI])
|
|
Patients with grade 2 or higher skin toxicity
|
14 (29%)
|
29 (62%)
|
0.3 (0.1 to 0.6)
|
|
Grade 2 toxicity
Grade 3 toxicity
|
11 (23%)
3 (6%)
|
19 (40%)
10 (21%)
|
|
|
Adverse Events
|
All patients experienced at least one adverse event.
Grade 3 or higher adverse events: 60% in the preemptive group; 81% in the reactive group.
|
|
Study Author Conclusions
|
The preemptive skin treatment regimen was well tolerated. The incidence of specific ≥ grade 2 skin toxicities during the 6-week skin treatment period was reduced by more than 50% in the preemptive group compared with the reactive group. Patients in the preemptive group reported less quality of life impairment than patients in the reactive group.
|
|
InpharmD Researcher Critique
|
The lack of blinding could introduce bias, thereby influencing the evaluation of skin toxicities and quality of life. Although the study compared pre-emptive and reactive treatment approaches, there was no control group that received no treatment or a placebo. |