台大皮膚科 王修含 醫師
表皮細胞生長因子受體（EGFR）拮抗劑，例如gefitinib(即台灣稱為艾瑞莎Iressa的藥物)、erlotinib與cetuximab等標靶治療藥物(targeted therapies)，已被應用於治療癌症。其效度被認為與皮膚反應有關，在預後因子方面，我們發現甲溝炎為最重要的存活預後因子 (p = 0.0427)。
台大皮膚科團隊與台大腫瘤科楊志新醫師合作進行本研究(DERMATOLOGICA SINICA 2011; 29, 13-18)，目的在探討gefitinib藥物造成的各種皮膚反應，並分析主要的治療預後因子。我們以回溯型研究的方法，分析68位以gefitinib(Iressa，艾瑞莎)治療晚期非小細胞型肺癌的病患，發現主要的皮膚反應為：
毛囊炎 (41.2%)、
皮膚乾燥 (38.2%)、
搔癢 (26.5%)、甲溝炎 (16.2%)。
圖：晚期肺癌使用gefitinib(Iressa, 艾瑞莎)治療之皮膚表現- (A) 痤瘡樣毛囊炎(acneiform eruption)：本圖為脂漏性部位的膿皰與紅色丘疹 (B) 前額部位的膿皰 (C) 右前臂的皮膚乾燥(xerosis) (D) 的手指與腳趾部位具疼痛感的甲溝炎(paronychia)
【本站文章版權所有，歡迎非商業性「部份」轉載（請勿全文轉載），轉載請註明作者姓名標示(皮膚科王修含醫師)與出處(skin168.net/ skin168.com/ skin168.org)，禁止更動內文，並提供有效的本站超連結。】
單變項分析發現，甲溝炎為最重要的存活預後因子 (p = 0.0427)。
多變項分析顯示，雖然年老者存活率較低，但發生甲溝炎的老年病患，反而具有較好的預後 (p = 0.0050)；皮膚乾燥與甲溝炎的發生有正向相關性 (p = 0.0082)。
圖：晚期肺癌使用gefitinib(Iressa, 艾瑞莎)治療之皮膚表現與存活率關聯分析-使用Kaplan-Meier estimates分析發生甲溝炎(paronychia)之患者
圖：晚期肺癌使用gefitinib(Iressa, 艾瑞莎)治療之皮膚表現與存活率關聯分析-使用Kaplan-Meier estimates分析發生痤瘡樣毛囊炎(acneiform eruption)之患者
圖：晚期肺癌使用gefitinib(Iressa, 艾瑞莎)治療之皮膚表現與存活率關聯分析-使用Kaplan-Meier estimates分析發生搔癢反應(itching)之患者
圖：晚期肺癌使用gefitinib(Iressa, 艾瑞莎)治療之皮膚表現與存活率關聯分析-使用Kaplan-Meier estimates分析發生皮膚乾燥(xerosis)之患者
闡明這些皮膚反應的關係，能進一步提供我們關於皮膚表皮細胞生長因子受體之相關機制。
本論文詳細資料：Dermatologica Sinica. 2011; doi:10.1016/j.dsi.2011.02.003
【本站文章版權所有，歡迎非商業性「部份」轉載（請勿全文轉載），轉載請註明作者姓名標示(皮膚科王修含醫師)與出處(skin168.net/ skin168.com/ skin168.org)，禁止更動內文，並提供有效的本站超連結。】
DERMATOLOGICA SINICA 29 (2011) 13-18
王修含(Shiou-Han Wang),1 楊志新(Chih-Hsin Yang),2 邱顯清(Hsien-Ching Chiu),1 胡賦強(Fu-Chang Hu),3 詹智傑(Chih-Chieh Chan),1 廖怡華(Yi-Hua Liao),1 陳小菁(Hsiao-Chin Chen),1 朱家瑜(Chia-Yu Chu)1*
1台灣大學醫學院附設醫院皮膚部(Department of Dermatology, National Taiwan University Hospital and College of Medicine, National Taiwan University)
2台灣大學醫學院附設醫院腫瘤醫學部(Department of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital and College of Medicine, National Taiwan University)
3台灣大學醫學院暨公衛學院國家級卓越臨床試驗與研究中心(National
Center of Excellence for General Clinical Trial and Research, National
Taiwan University Hospital and College of Public Health, National Taiwan
University)
ABSTRACT
Background/Purpose Epidermal
growth factor receptor (EGFR) antagonists, such as gefitinib, erlotinib
and cetuximab have been used in treating carcinomas. The efficacies
have been proposed to correlate with skin reactions, but the most important predictive indicator is still unknown. Our aim was to investigate the types of skin toxicities and to analyze the major therapeutic predictive indicators in Taiwan.
Methods A retrospective analysis was used to study 68 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer receiving gefitinib.
Results Acneiform eruption (41.2%), xerosis (38.2%), pruritus (26.5%), and paronychia (16.2%) composed most of the skin reactions. The univariate analysis revealed paronychia the most substantial survival predictive indicator (p = 0.0427). In the multivariate analysis, older patients with paronychia have better prognosis (p = 0.0050). Women tended to develop paronychia (p = 0.1098). Xerosis positively correlated with paronychia (p = 0.0082).
Conclusion Paronychia is the most indicative survival predictive factor among the skin
manifestations, and it correlates with age, gender and xerosis.
Elucidation of the relationship between cutaneous reactions can provide
information on the EGFR signaling mechanism of skin.
Table 1. Common skin toxicities in the 68 patients receiving gefitinib therapy.
Skin toxicities Median onset time (d) Men (%) (n
=33) Women (%) (n=35) Total (%) (n=68)| Acneiform eruption | 14 | 14 (42.4) | 14 (40.0) | 28 (41.2) |
| Dry skin/xerosis | 50 | 15 (45.4) | 11 (31.4) | 26 (38.2) |
| Generalized pruritus | 30 | 7 (21.2) | 11 (31.4) | 18 (26.5) |
| Paronychia | 60 | 3 (9.1) | 8 (22.8) | 11 (16.2) |
Table 2. Median survival days and 1-year survival rate for each of the four main toxicities.
Skin toxicities Median survival d and 1-yr survival rates (%)With Withoutp*
| Acneiform eruption | 475, 62.4 | 414, 59.5 | 0.2022 |
| Xerosis | 421, 60.9 | 431, 56.8 | 0.7548 |
| Itching | 507, 61.4 | 414, 57.2 | 0.2509 |
| Paronychia | Not reached, 80.8 | 408, 56.1 | 0.0427 |
∗A two-sample log-rank test was conducted to compare the survival curves over the whole follow-up period.
Table 3. Multiple Cox’s proportional hazards model stratified by
stage of disease for modeling the hazard rate of time to death (n=59).*
Risk factor Regression coefficient Standard error χ2p Hazard ratio
| Age×male | 0.0132 | 0.0068 | 3.7369 | 0.0532 | 1.013 |
| Age×paronychia | −0.0283 | 0.0101 | 7.8727 | 0.0050 | 0.972 |
| Male×xerosis | 1.4487 | 0.5530 | 6.8641 | 0.0088 | 4.258 |
Table 4. Multiple logistic regression model for modeling the probability of having paronychia (n=59).*
Risk factor Regression coefficient Standard error Wald test statistic Odds ratio 95% Confidence intervalp
| Intercept | −2.4582 | 0.7429 | 10.9486 | — | — | 0.0009 |
| Male | −1.3305 | 0.8320 | 2.5573 | 0.264 | 0.052–1.350 | 0.1098 |
| Xerosis | 2.3729 | 0.8972 | 6.9939 | 10.728 | 1.848–62.268 | 0.0082 |
∗Percentage of concordant pairs=68.4%; percentage of discordant pairs=10.6%; and percentage of tied pairs=21.0%; Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test χ2=0.3733 (with 2 degrees of freedom); p=0.8297>0.05.
=0.0427). In the multivariate analysis, older patients with paronychia had better prognosis (p=0.0050). Women tended to develop paronychia (p=0.1098). Xerosis positively correlated with paronychia (p=0.0082).
It has been shown that gefitinib monotherapy has a significant antitumor effect in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).3, 4, 5 Common cutaneous adverse reactions include acneiform eruption, xerosis, pruritus, and paronychia.6, 7, 8 Several other studies have shown the possible relationship between the therapeutic efficacy and the severity of the cutaneous toxicities on treatment with EGFR antagonists, such as gefitinib, erlotinib, and cetuximab.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 We characterize the skin toxicities of gefitinib in Taiwan and investigate their roles in survival analysis.
mg
daily). Gefitinib administration was encouraged to be continued unless
the skin toxicity was unbearable and was resumed as soon as possible
after the severe skin toxicity subsided. We followed up the enrolled
patients for more than 30 months since the administration of gefitinib.
Acneiform
eruption usually developed on the face, anterior chest, and back,
especially on the seborrheic region. Tiny pustules and/or erythematous
papules (Figures 1A and 1B)
composed the eruption with similar histopathology to folliculitis. Four
patients received skin biopsy, and all of them had the aforementioned
findings. The median onset time was 14 days (Table 1). Either Staphylococcus aureus or Propionibacterium acnes was yielded occasionally from the pus culture performed in four patients. Propionibacterium acnes was yielded in two cases and S. aureus
in one case, and the results were negative in the other one case. The
acneiform eruption was self-limited and responded well to traditional
treatment for acne, such as antibiotic lotions.
=4/2) suffered from acneiform eruption, but another five (women/men=4/1)
were spared. Most of the patients had only one skin adverse reaction at
the investigation time. At least one of these four main skin side
effects occurred in 23 of 33 men (69.7%) and 23 of 35 women (65.7%).
=0.0427). Statistically significant association between patient’s survival and the other cutaneous reactions were not found (Table 2).
Table 3.
Multiple Cox’s proportional hazards model stratified by stage of
disease for modeling the hazard rate of time to death (n
Table 4. Multiple logistic regression model for modeling the probability of having paronychia (n
To
focus our multivariate analysis on the interaction of paronychia and
other parameters, eight patients who expired in 60 days that was the
median onset time of paronychia were excluded from this analysis to
avoid underlying confounding factors. As a result, no patients with
paronychia were excluded. In the remaining 60 patients, 10 patients with
paronychia survived for more than 300 days, but one patient with
paronychia expired on Day 100. These 10 patients were further used for
the regression analysis.
With the help of the available model-fitting techniques, the fitted final multiple Cox’s proportional hazards model stratified by stage of disease (Stages 3 and 4) for predicting the patient’s survival is shown in Table 3 (n=59).16
We found that conditioning on the stage of disease (Stage 4 is worse
than Stage 3), older male patients or men with xerosis have higher
hazard rates of dying, but older patients with paronychia have lower
hazard rates of death. Specifically, when the other variables in the
fitted regression model are held fixed, the predicted hazard rate of a
60-year-old patient with paronychia would be 0.18 times less than that
of a patient of the same age without paronychia according to the
following calculation: exp(−0.02834×60)=0.18261.
Finally, the occurrence of paronychia was further analyzed by a multiple logistic regression model to discover the associated risk factors. With the help of the available model-fitting techniques again, the fitted final multiple logistic regression model for predicting the probability of having paronychia is shown in Table 4 (n=59).17
We found that men have a lower chance of having paronychia, but
patients with xerosis have a higher chance of having paronychia, which
would lead to a lower hazard rate of dying according to the
aforementioned survival analysis (Table 3).
Specifically, when the other variable in the fitted regression model is
held fixed, the odds of having paronychia in a patient with xerosis
would be almost 11 times greater than that of a patient without xerosis
because of the calculation exp(2.3729)=10.728.
Note that the odds ratio here is the ratio of the probability of having
paronychia versus 1 minus the probability of having paronychia, and
thus, the greater the odds ratio, the greater is the probability of
having paronychia.
Four major skin toxicities, including acneiform eruption, xerosis, pruritus, and paronychia, are analyzed in this article. Acneiform eruption was the commonest one, followed by xerosis. Some previous studies also revealed that acneiform eruption was the most popular skin reaction,1, 6, 22, 23 and the frequency of development might be dose dependent.1, 22, 23 However, the cutaneous reactions were indicated as “skin rashes” in most studies without characterizing their features.
Histopathological findings in the gefitinib-related acneiform eruption showed similarity to folliculitis.24 Activating the EGFR signaling system can stimulate the transition of hair cycle from anagen phase to catagen phase.19, 25 The activation of EGFR can decrease the rate of growth and differentiation of multiple cell types within hair follicles.6, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26 Gefitinib-induced follicular eruptions might reflect a disturbance of the equilibrium between follicular proliferation and differentiation.24 Excessive follicular hyperkeratosis, follicular plugging, ostial obstruction, altered follicular cycle, and subsequent inflammation may cause the acneiform eruption.6 Acneiform eruptions in our survival study did not show a significant association (p=0.2022) in the univariate analysis (Table 2).
However, for patients with NSCLC receiving gefitinib, who developed
skin rash in any grade, a better median survival has been reported than
for those without rash.10, 12 This discrepancy may be because of the limited sample size in our retrospective study.
The second common skin adverse reaction of gefitinib in our study was xerosis. The gefitinib-induced xerosis also reflects a disturbance of the equilibrium between the epidermal proliferation and differentiation.6, 24 Xerosis did not show a significant association with the survival (p=0.751) in the univariate analysis (Table 2), but men with xerosis had a significantly higher hazard rate (p=0.0088) in the multivariate analysis of survival (Table 3). As shown in Table 4, xerosis was positively associated with paronychia (p=0.0082), but male patients tended less to develop paronychia (p=0.1098). We kept the less significant covariate “male” in the final fitted logistic regression model (Table 4)
to motivate further investigations in the future. Even though a man
with xerosis did develop paronychia, the reduction of the hazard rate
because of paronychia would be counteracted by the negative effect of
xerosis on survival (Table 3).
Pruritus is a feature of inflammation, and xerosis is the most common underlying condition of pruritus.27 Gefitinib-related epidermal alterations with inhibition of proliferation and differentiation may be associated with the xerosis and pruritus.6, 27
Paronychia has been reported to be associated with the treatment of methotrexate, sulfonamide, indinavir, and etretinate.6 Some EGFR inhibitors, such as monoclonal antibodies against the EGFR (e.g. cetuximab, panitumumab, matuzumab) and EGFR-TKIs (e.g. gefitinib, erlotinib), have also been reported to cause paronychia and granulation tissue formation.6, 28, 29 Systemic retinoids may induce this sign.29, 30 Retinoic acid can decrease EGFR expression through transcriptional downregulation.31 Xerosis induced by EGFR inhibition may promote desquamation with subsequent sticking between the nail plate and the neighboring skin.29, 32 Chronic irritation with inflammation may lead to paronychia and growth of granulation tissue.29 Our finding that xerosis was positively associated with paronychia (p=0.0082) (Table 4) might support the aforementioned hypothesis. Paronychia was the most significant predictive indicator (p=0.0427) of a patient’s survival in the univariate analysis (Figure 2A and Table 2).
After considering all the other potential predictors of patient’s
survival in our data set, we found that paronychia interacting with age
was the most essential predictive indicator (p=0.0050) in the multivariate analysis (Table 3).
Paronychia may be associated with EGFR mutations. Non-small-cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations predicts good response to EGFR-TKIs. 33 Our analysis showed that women tended to have paronychia (p=0.1098) (Table 4). Recent studies reveal that female gender is predisposed to EGFR mutations and is a predictor of gefitinib response.34, 35 Moreover, we found that older patients with paronychia have a better prognosis (p=0.0050) (Table 3).
Old age may also be a predisposing factor for EGFR-mutated NSCLC and,
thus, preferentially develop paronychia. The gene analysis is valuable
for further workup. However, it should be noted that the patient number
in our study was a relatively limited sample size for analysis of the
significance correlated with survival rate. The statistical result may
have potential bias.
For patients with NSCLC treated with gefitinib, it has been reported that development of skin rash is associated with a significant increase in median survial.10, 12 EGFR gene mutations and increased EGFR gene copy number were associated with better response to gefitinib, and the mutations are a better predictive factor than the EGFR gene gain.36 Severity of the skin rash is also related to the survival of the patients of various cancers treated with cetuximab.12 Polymorphic variations of the egfr gene may be associated with this phenomenon.37 Thus, the development of cutaneous toxicities might be a useful predictive factor for the therapeutic response. In this retrospective study, we were unable to evaluate the severity of acneiform eruption. Severe rash should still be considered as a possible significant prognostic factor of a patient’s survival.
In summary, the occurrence of paronychia could be considered as the “proxy” of NSCLC patient’s response to gefitinib therapy. However, age, gender, and xerosis may also influence the development of paronychia and prognosis. Elucidation of the mechanisms of EGFR-targeted therapies and the cutaneous reactions can provide information on the physiological role of EGFR signaling in human skin.
=68.4%; percentage of discordant pairs=10.6%; and percentage of tied pairs=21.0%; Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test χ2=0.3733 (with 2 degrees of freedom); p=0.8297>0.05.Article Outline
Abstract
Background
Epidermal growth factor receptor antagonists, such as gefitinib, erlotinib, and cetuximab, have been used in treating carcinomas. The efficacies have been proposed to correlate with skin reactions, but the most important predictive indicator is still unknown. Our aim was to investigate the types of skin toxicities and to analyze the major therapeutic predictive indicators in Taiwan.Methods
A retrospective analysis was used to study 68 patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer receiving gefitinib.Results
Acneiform eruption (41.2%), xerosis (38.2%), pruritus (26.5%), and paronychia (16.2%) composed most of the skin reactions. The univariate analysis revealed paronychia as the most substantial survival predictive indicator (p=0.0427). In the multivariate analysis, older patients with paronychia had better prognosis (p=0.0050). Women tended to develop paronychia (p=0.1098). Xerosis positively correlated with paronychia (p=0.0082).Conclusion
Paronychia is the most indicative survival predictive factor among the skin manifestations, and it correlates with age, gender, and xerosis. Elucidation of the relationship between cutaneous reactions can provide information on the epidermal growth factor receptor signaling mechanism of skin.
Keywords: Gefitinib, Non-small-cell lung cancer, Paronychia, Predictive factor, Skin toxicities (cutaneous adverse reactions)
Introduction
Gefitinib (AstraZeneca UK Limited, Cheshire, UK) is an oral anti-neoplastic agent classified as quinazoline. As a selective epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)–tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI), it acts intracellularly to inhibit the EGFR signal transduction pathway. EGFRs are expressed in many solid tumors, such as those of lungs, breasts, stomach, colon, and pancreas.1, 2 It may enhance carcinogenesis by promoting cell proliferation, motility, adhesion, invasive capacity, and inhibiting apoptosis.1It has been shown that gefitinib monotherapy has a significant antitumor effect in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).3, 4, 5 Common cutaneous adverse reactions include acneiform eruption, xerosis, pruritus, and paronychia.6, 7, 8 Several other studies have shown the possible relationship between the therapeutic efficacy and the severity of the cutaneous toxicities on treatment with EGFR antagonists, such as gefitinib, erlotinib, and cetuximab.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 We characterize the skin toxicities of gefitinib in Taiwan and investigate their roles in survival analysis.
Methods
Patients
From February 2003 to December 2004, 68 patients with NSCLC receiving gefitinib monotherapy more than 28 consecutive days in the National Taiwan University Hospital were enrolled (33 men and 35 women; age ranged from 41 years to 91 years; mean age, 65.5 years and 65.8 years, respectively). Gefitinib was given orally as a single dose (250mg
daily). Gefitinib administration was encouraged to be continued unless
the skin toxicity was unbearable and was resumed as soon as possible
after the severe skin toxicity subsided. We followed up the enrolled
patients for more than 30 months since the administration of gefitinib.Clinical analysis
Cutaneous reactions after the gefitinib treatment were recorded by the oncologists, internists, and consulted dermatologists. Scrutiny reviews of the medical records, including admission note, progress notes, and nursing notes, were carried out.Statistical analysis
Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank test were used to study the relationship between median survival time and skin toxicities. In addition to the descriptive analyses, regression analysis with multiple Cox’s proportional hazards model was conducted to evaluate the effects of age, sex, stage of disease, chemotherapy, skin toxicities, and their interactions on the patient’s survival.15, 16 The occurrence of the skin toxicity predicting patient’s survival was further analyzed by multiple logistic regression model to discover the associated risk factors.17 Exclusion criteria were applied in multivariate analysis to avoid confounding factors: (1) patients who expired before the median onset time of the investigated toxicity and (2) patients with the investigated reaction but the survival data as extreme outliers defined as points beyond the outer fences of boxplots. Basic model-fitting techniques for (1) variable selection (such as the stepwise method with the significance levels for entry and stay set to 0.15); (2) goodness-of-fit assessment; and (3) regression diagnostics (including residual analysis, influence analysis, and check of multicollinearity), were used in our regression analyses to assure the quality of the analysis results.16, 17 A two-tailed p value of 0.05 or less was considered statistically significant. All the statistical analyses were performed with the SPSS (Version 13.0) and SAS (Version 9.1) software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).Results
Skin toxicities
In these 68 patients, 46 had skin toxicities (67.6%). The major skin toxicities were acneiform eruption (28 patients, 41.2%); xerosis (26 patients, 38.2%), generalized itching (18 patients, 26.5%), and paronychia (11 patients, 16.2%). Some other skin presentations were oral ulcers, alopecia, and petechiae (Table 1).Table 1. Common skin toxicities in the 68 patients receiving gefitinib therapy.
| Skin toxicities | Median onset time (d) | Men (%) (n=33) | Women (%) (n=35) | Total (%) (n=68) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acneiform eruption | 14 | 14 (42.4) | 14 (40.0) | 28 (41.2) |
| Dry skin/xerosis | 50 | 15 (45.4) | 11 (31.4) | 26 (38.2) |
| Generalized pruritus | 30 | 7 (21.2) | 11 (31.4) | 18 (26.5) |
| Paronychia | 60 | 3 (9.1) | 8 (22.8) | 11 (16.2) |
Figure 1
(A) Tiny pustules and/or erythematous papules developed on the seborrheic regions. (B) Close-up view of the pustules on the forehead. (C) Xerosis of right forearm. (D) Painful paronychia around fingers and toes.
=4/2) suffered from acneiform eruption, but another five (women/men=4/1)
were spared. Most of the patients had only one skin adverse reaction at
the investigation time. At least one of these four main skin side
effects occurred in 23 of 33 men (69.7%) and 23 of 35 women (65.7%).Skin toxicities and survival
The median survival time and 1-year survival rate for patients with different types of skin toxicities are listed in Table 2. The Kaplan–Meier estimates of the survival curves for the patients with and without each of the cutaneous toxicities are shown in Figure 2.18 The two-sample log-rank test was conducted to compare the survival curves between the patients with and without each skin reaction over the whole follow-up period (Table 2).16 This univariate analysis indicated paronychia as the most important therapeutic predictive indicator (p=0.0427). Statistically significant association between patient’s survival and the other cutaneous reactions were not found (Table 2).Table 2. Median survival days and 1-year survival rate for each of the four main toxicities.
| Skin toxicities | Median survival d and 1-yr survival rates (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| With | Without | p* | |
| Acneiform eruption | 475, 62.4 | 414, 59.5 | 0.2022 |
| Xerosis | 421, 60.9 | 431, 56.8 | 0.7548 |
| Itching | 507, 61.4 | 414, 57.2 | 0.2509 |
| Paronychia | Not reached, 80.8 | 408, 56.1 | 0.0427 |
∗A two-sample log-rank test was conducted to compare the survival curves over the whole follow-up period.
|
Figure 2
Kaplan–Meier estimates of the survival curves for patients with and without (A) paronychia, (B) acneiform eruption, (C) itching, and (D) xerosis (with: 1, without: 0). Cum survival
Table 3.
Multiple Cox’s proportional hazards model stratified by stage of
disease for modeling the hazard rate of time to death (n=59).*
| Risk factor | Regression coefficient | Standard error | χ2 | p | Hazard ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age×male | 0.0132 | 0.0068 | 3.7369 | 0.0532 | 1.013 |
| Age×paronychia | −0.0283 | 0.0101 | 7.8727 | 0.0050 | 0.972 |
| Male×xerosis | 1.4487 | 0.5530 | 6.8641 | 0.0088 | 4.258 |
Table 4. Multiple logistic regression model for modeling the probability of having paronychia (n=59).*
| Risk factor | Regression coefficient | Standard error | Wald test statistic | Odds ratio | 95% Confidence interval | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | −2.4582 | 0.7429 | 10.9486 | — | — | 0.0009 |
| Male | −1.3305 | 0.8320 | 2.5573 | 0.264 | 0.052–1.350 | 0.1098 |
| Xerosis | 2.3729 | 0.8972 | 6.9939 | 10.728 | 1.848–62.268 | 0.0082 |
∗Percentage of concordant pairs
=68.4%; percentage of discordant pairs=10.6%; and percentage of tied pairs=21.0%; Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test χ2=0.3733 (with 2 degrees of freedom); p=0.8297>0.05. |
With the help of the available model-fitting techniques, the fitted final multiple Cox’s proportional hazards model stratified by stage of disease (Stages 3 and 4) for predicting the patient’s survival is shown in Table 3 (n
=59).16
We found that conditioning on the stage of disease (Stage 4 is worse
than Stage 3), older male patients or men with xerosis have higher
hazard rates of dying, but older patients with paronychia have lower
hazard rates of death. Specifically, when the other variables in the
fitted regression model are held fixed, the predicted hazard rate of a
60-year-old patient with paronychia would be 0.18 times less than that
of a patient of the same age without paronychia according to the
following calculation: exp(−0.02834×60)=0.18261.Finally, the occurrence of paronychia was further analyzed by a multiple logistic regression model to discover the associated risk factors. With the help of the available model-fitting techniques again, the fitted final multiple logistic regression model for predicting the probability of having paronychia is shown in Table 4 (n
=59).17
We found that men have a lower chance of having paronychia, but
patients with xerosis have a higher chance of having paronychia, which
would lead to a lower hazard rate of dying according to the
aforementioned survival analysis (Table 3).
Specifically, when the other variable in the fitted regression model is
held fixed, the odds of having paronychia in a patient with xerosis
would be almost 11 times greater than that of a patient without xerosis
because of the calculation exp(2.3729)=10.728.
Note that the odds ratio here is the ratio of the probability of having
paronychia versus 1 minus the probability of having paronychia, and
thus, the greater the odds ratio, the greater is the probability of
having paronychia.Discussion
The EGFR signaling pathway is important for cell physiology and metastasis of malignancy.1, 2, 3, 19 In human skin, EGFR is expressed on basal keratinocytes and outer root sheath of hair follicles.20 Inhibiting EGFR-TK in vitro can induce terminal differentiation to arrest the growth of keratinocytes.21 Cutaneous toxicities after gefitinib therapy may correlate with the significance of EGFR in human skin.Four major skin toxicities, including acneiform eruption, xerosis, pruritus, and paronychia, are analyzed in this article. Acneiform eruption was the commonest one, followed by xerosis. Some previous studies also revealed that acneiform eruption was the most popular skin reaction,1, 6, 22, 23 and the frequency of development might be dose dependent.1, 22, 23 However, the cutaneous reactions were indicated as “skin rashes” in most studies without characterizing their features.
Histopathological findings in the gefitinib-related acneiform eruption showed similarity to folliculitis.24 Activating the EGFR signaling system can stimulate the transition of hair cycle from anagen phase to catagen phase.19, 25 The activation of EGFR can decrease the rate of growth and differentiation of multiple cell types within hair follicles.6, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26 Gefitinib-induced follicular eruptions might reflect a disturbance of the equilibrium between follicular proliferation and differentiation.24 Excessive follicular hyperkeratosis, follicular plugging, ostial obstruction, altered follicular cycle, and subsequent inflammation may cause the acneiform eruption.6 Acneiform eruptions in our survival study did not show a significant association (p
=0.2022) in the univariate analysis (Table 2).
However, for patients with NSCLC receiving gefitinib, who developed
skin rash in any grade, a better median survival has been reported than
for those without rash.10, 12 This discrepancy may be because of the limited sample size in our retrospective study.The second common skin adverse reaction of gefitinib in our study was xerosis. The gefitinib-induced xerosis also reflects a disturbance of the equilibrium between the epidermal proliferation and differentiation.6, 24 Xerosis did not show a significant association with the survival (p
=0.751) in the univariate analysis (Table 2), but men with xerosis had a significantly higher hazard rate (p=0.0088) in the multivariate analysis of survival (Table 3). As shown in Table 4, xerosis was positively associated with paronychia (p=0.0082), but male patients tended less to develop paronychia (p=0.1098). We kept the less significant covariate “male” in the final fitted logistic regression model (Table 4)
to motivate further investigations in the future. Even though a man
with xerosis did develop paronychia, the reduction of the hazard rate
because of paronychia would be counteracted by the negative effect of
xerosis on survival (Table 3).Pruritus is a feature of inflammation, and xerosis is the most common underlying condition of pruritus.27 Gefitinib-related epidermal alterations with inhibition of proliferation and differentiation may be associated with the xerosis and pruritus.6, 27
Paronychia has been reported to be associated with the treatment of methotrexate, sulfonamide, indinavir, and etretinate.6 Some EGFR inhibitors, such as monoclonal antibodies against the EGFR (e.g. cetuximab, panitumumab, matuzumab) and EGFR-TKIs (e.g. gefitinib, erlotinib), have also been reported to cause paronychia and granulation tissue formation.6, 28, 29 Systemic retinoids may induce this sign.29, 30 Retinoic acid can decrease EGFR expression through transcriptional downregulation.31 Xerosis induced by EGFR inhibition may promote desquamation with subsequent sticking between the nail plate and the neighboring skin.29, 32 Chronic irritation with inflammation may lead to paronychia and growth of granulation tissue.29 Our finding that xerosis was positively associated with paronychia (p
=0.0082) (Table 4) might support the aforementioned hypothesis. Paronychia was the most significant predictive indicator (p=0.0427) of a patient’s survival in the univariate analysis (Figure 2A and Table 2).
After considering all the other potential predictors of patient’s
survival in our data set, we found that paronychia interacting with age
was the most essential predictive indicator (p=0.0050) in the multivariate analysis (Table 3).Paronychia may be associated with EGFR mutations. Non-small-cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations predicts good response to EGFR-TKIs. 33 Our analysis showed that women tended to have paronychia (p
=0.1098) (Table 4). Recent studies reveal that female gender is predisposed to EGFR mutations and is a predictor of gefitinib response.34, 35 Moreover, we found that older patients with paronychia have a better prognosis (p=0.0050) (Table 3).
Old age may also be a predisposing factor for EGFR-mutated NSCLC and,
thus, preferentially develop paronychia. The gene analysis is valuable
for further workup. However, it should be noted that the patient number
in our study was a relatively limited sample size for analysis of the
significance correlated with survival rate. The statistical result may
have potential bias.For patients with NSCLC treated with gefitinib, it has been reported that development of skin rash is associated with a significant increase in median survial.10, 12 EGFR gene mutations and increased EGFR gene copy number were associated with better response to gefitinib, and the mutations are a better predictive factor than the EGFR gene gain.36 Severity of the skin rash is also related to the survival of the patients of various cancers treated with cetuximab.12 Polymorphic variations of the egfr gene may be associated with this phenomenon.37 Thus, the development of cutaneous toxicities might be a useful predictive factor for the therapeutic response. In this retrospective study, we were unable to evaluate the severity of acneiform eruption. Severe rash should still be considered as a possible significant prognostic factor of a patient’s survival.
In summary, the occurrence of paronychia could be considered as the “proxy” of NSCLC patient’s response to gefitinib therapy. However, age, gender, and xerosis may also influence the development of paronychia and prognosis. Elucidation of the mechanisms of EGFR-targeted therapies and the cutaneous reactions can provide information on the physiological role of EGFR signaling in human skin.
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr Yuang-Shiang Liaw for generously providing helpful discussions and Ms Chia-Chi Cheng for her assistance in statistical computing.References
- ZD1839, a selective oral epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is well tolerated and active in patients with solid, malignant tumors: results of a phase I trial. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:2240–2250
- . Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs): simple drugs with a complex mechanism of action?. J Cell Physiol. 2003;194:13–19
- . Gefitinib therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Pharmacother. 2003;37:1644–1653
- Gefitinib (ZD1839) monotherapy as a salvage regimen for previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:4383–4388
- Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:2380–2388
- Cutaneous side effects in non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with Iressa (ZD1839), an inhibitor of epidermal growth factor. Acta Derm Venereol. 2004;84:23–26
- Cutaneous side effects caused by gefitinib treatment of lung cancer case report and review of literature. Dermatol Sin. 2007;25:136–141
- . Severe purpuric xerotic dermatitis associated with gefitinib therapy. Arch Dermatol. 2008;144:269–270
- Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:337–345
- Outcomes of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with gefitinib (ZD1839, “Iressa”) on an expanded access study. Lung Cancer. 2004;44:221–230
- Determinants of tumor response and survival with erlotinib in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3238–3247
- Skin rash and good performance status predict improved survival with gefitinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:780–785
- Clinical significance of skin toxicity due to EGFR-targeted therapies. J Oncol. 2009;2009:849051
- . Skin toxicities associated with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors. Target Oncol. 2009;4:107–119
- . Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1972;34:187–220
- . Applied survival analysis: Regression modeling of time to event data. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1999;
- . Applied logistic regression. 2nd ed.. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2000;
- . Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–481
- Pharmacodynamic studies of the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor ZD1839 in skin from cancer patients: histopathologic and molecular consequences of receptor inhibition. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:110–124
- . Comparison of epidermal growth factor binding and receptor distribution in normal human epidermis and epidermal appendages. J Invest Dermatol. 1984;83:385–393
- . EGF-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibition induces keratinocyte growth arrest and terminal differentiation. J Invest Dermatol. 1997;109:751–756
- Phase I safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic trial of ZD1839, a selective oral epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with five selected solid tumor types. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:4292–4302
- Selective oral epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor ZD1839 is generally well-tolerated and has activity in non-small-cell lung cancer and other solid tumors: results of a phase I trial. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:3815–3825
- Follicular and epidermal alterations in patients treated with ZD1839 (Iressa), an inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor. Br J Dermatol. 2002;147:598–601
- . Effects of EGF on the morphology and patterns of DNA synthesis in isolated human hair follicles. J Invest Dermatol. 1994;102:186–191
- Genetically null mice reveal a central role for epidermal growth factor receptor in the differentiation of the hair follicle and normal hair development. Am J Pathol. 1997;150:1959–1975
- . Willan’s itch and other causes of pruritus in the elderly. Int J Dermatol. 2005;44:267–273
- Cutaneous side-effects in cancer patients treated with the antiepidermal growth factor receptor antibody C225. Br J Dermatol. 2001;144:1169–1176
- . Clinical signs, pathophysiology and management of skin toxicity during therapy with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:1425–1433
- . Paronychia and pyogenic granuloma-like lesions with isotretinoin. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1984;10:677–678
- Evidence for the epidermal growth factor receptor as a target for lung cancer prevention. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8:54–60
- . Etretinate and the nails (study of 130 cases) possible mechanisms of some side-effects. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1986;11:148–152
- Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors as first-line treatment in advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Curr Opin Oncol. 2010;22:112–120
- Risk factors differ for non-small-cell lung cancers with and without EGFR mutation: assessment of smoking and sex by a case-control study in Japanese. Cancer Sci. 2007;98:96–101
- . Impact of EGFR mutation analysis in non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2009;63:315–321
- Somatic EGFR mutation and gene copy gain as predictive biomarkers for response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:291–303
- An epidermal growth factor receptor intron 1 p.lymorphism mediates response to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors. Cancer Res. 2004;64:9139–9143
PII: S1027-8117(11)00013-9
doi:10.1016/j.dsi.2011.02.003
© 2011 Published by Elsevier Inc.
【本站文章版權所有，歡迎非商業性「部份」轉載（請勿全文轉載），轉載請註明作者姓名標示(皮膚科王修含醫師)與出處(skin168.net/ skin168.com/ skin168.org)，禁止更動內文，並提供有效的本站超連結。】
