This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) CME: Take the course for this article: HER1/EGFR Inhibitor-Associated Rash: Future Directions for Management and I... eLetters: Submit a response to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services E-mail this article link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints/Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pérez-Soler, R. Articles by Leyden, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pérez-Soler, R. Articles by Leyden, J.

HER1/EGFR Inhibitor-Associated Rash: Future Directions for Management and Investigation Outcomes from the HER1/EGFR Inhibitor Rash Management Forum

^a Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA; ^b Institut Claudius Regaud, Toulouse, France; ^c Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA; ^d University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado, USA; ^e The Rockefeller University, Dermatology Laboratory, New York, New York, USA; ^f Servicio Oncologiá Médica, Hospital General Universitario Alicante, Alicante, Spain; ^g Asklepios Fachkliniken, Gauting-Munich, Germany; ^h Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; ⁱ Divisione Oncologia Medica Falck, Ospedale Niguarda Cá Granda, Milano, Italy; ^j Centre d’Oncologie, CHUM Campus Notre-Dame, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; ^k University of Pennsylvania Hospital, Malvern, Pennsylvania, USA

Correspondence: Román Pérez-Soler, M.D., Department of Oncology, Hofheimer 100, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 111 East 210th Street, Bronx, New York 10467, USA. Telephone: 718-920-4001; Fax: 718-798-7474; e-mail: rperezso{at}montefiore.org

	LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction HER1/EGFR-Inhibitor Rash... Rash: A Common Side... Evaluating Agents to Treat... Future Direction Potential Conflicts of Interest References

 
After completing this course, the reader will be able to:

1. Describe the clinical and pathological characteristics of the cutaneous rash secondary to anti-EGFR therapy.
   
2. Explain the prognostic implications of the cutaneous rash secondary to anti-EGFR therapy.
   
3. Discuss the treatment of the cutaneous rash secondary to anti-EGFR therapy.
   

	ABSTRACT

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction HER1/EGFR-Inhibitor Rash... Rash: A Common Side... Evaluating Agents to Treat... Future Direction Potential Conflicts of Interest References

 
Skin rash associated with HER1/epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors is common. The lack of clinical and patient guidance for this often chronic and sometimes distressing side effect makes rash management and etiology investigation high priorities. To address this, oncologists and dermatologists with experience with HER1/EGFR inhibitors attended the HER1/EGFR Inhibitor Rash Management Forum. Recommendations include continued analysis of the correlation between rash and clinical outcome and improving the accuracy and reproducibility of terminology and grading systems. Because acne vulgaris has a unique pathology, and the pathology and etiology of rash are unclear yet distinct from acne vulgaris, using such terms as acne, acne-like, or acneiform should be avoided. Until there is a specific dermatological definition, rash is best described using phenotypic terms for its appearance and location. It is currently unknown which agents are best for treating rash. Clinical trials of rash treatments are urgently required, and suggestions for agents to consider are made based on current knowledge. The effect of dose reduction or interruption on rash should also be investigated. Secondarily infected rash may be more frequent than has been previously recognized, and some investigators favor empiric use of an oral antibiotic if this appears to be the case. Suggestions for patients include makeup to camouflage the rash and an emollient to prevent and alleviate skin dryness. The increasing use of HER1/EGFR-targeted agents makes managing rash important. We hope the outcomes from this Forum provide background for future studies.

Key Words. HER1/EGFR • Rash • Adverse event • Survival • NSCLC • Tyrosine kinase inhibitor • Monoclonal antibody

	INTRODUCTION

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction HER1/EGFR-Inhibitor Rash... Rash: A Common Side... Evaluating Agents to Treat... Future Direction Potential Conflicts of Interest References

 
Over the past 10 years the approach to cancer treatment has changed because of improved understanding of the processes that regulate tumor growth and development. We now have anticancer strategies that inhibit the processes enabling tumors to grow, metastasize, and evade the host’s immune system. These targeted strategies promise activity against various tumors at different stages of development, alone or in combination with standard therapies, while avoiding most of the nonspecific toxicities that are common in standard chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Many oncologists hope that in the future these agents will make cancer a manageable chronic disease for many patients.

Initial targets included members of the human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) family, such as HER1/EGFR and HER2; CD20; molecules involved in angiogenesis, such as vascular endothelial growth factor; cyclooxygenase-2; and abl tyrosine kinase (activated by the bcr/abl translocation). Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved three agents that inhibit HER1/EGFR: gefitinib (Iressa^®; AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE, http://www.astrazeneca.com), cetuximab (Erbitux^TM; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ, http://www.bms.com; ImClone Systems Inc., Branchburg, NJ, http://www.imclone.com; Merck, Darmstadt, Germany, http://www.merck.com), and erlotinib (Tarceva^TM; Genentech Inc., South San Francisco, http://www.gene.com; OSI Pharmaceuticals Inc., Melville, NJ, http://www.osip.com; Hoffmann-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland, http://www.roche.com). The FDA approved gefitinib as third-line monotherapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of both platinum-based and docetaxel chemotherapies, and cetuximab for patients with irinotecan-refractory or intolerant metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Recent data from a phase III study of erlotinib HCl, a HER1/EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, show it is the only HER1/EGFR-targeted agent to improve survival compared with placebo in patients with advanced/refractory NSCLC [1].

Many HER1/EGFR-targeted agents are being developed, mainly tyrosine-kinase inhibitors or monoclonal antibodies (Table 1). The key indications for this class of drug are NSCLC and CRC, although they are being tested in numerous other settings, including glioblastoma and head and neck cancer. A great deal of effort is still going into evaluating and optimizing the use of these agents to maximize response rates and survival. However, as their routine use becomes widespread, other issues are emerging, namely the etiology and management of the rash that is a common side effect of all HER1/EGFR-targeted agents.

View larger version (109K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. A) Mild, B) moderate, and C) severe rash associated with HER1/EGFR inhibitor treatment.

	HER1/EGFR-INHIBITOR RASH MANAGEMENT FORUM

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction HER1/EGFR-Inhibitor Rash... Rash: A Common Side... Evaluating Agents to Treat... Future Direction Potential Conflicts of Interest References

	RASH: A COMMON SIDE EFFECT OF HER1/EGFR-TARGETED THERAPY

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction HER1/EGFR-Inhibitor Rash... Rash: A Common Side... Evaluating Agents to Treat... Future Direction Potential Conflicts of Interest References

 
There is a high incidence of rash in patients treated with agents that inhibit HER1/EGFR. Rash occurs with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, such as erlotinib and gefitinib, and anti-HER1/EGFR monoclonal antibodies, like cetuximab, EMD72000 and panitumumab (formerly ABX-EGF). Phase I data from dose-escalation studies show that rash is dose related [4–6]. The incidence of rash/dermatological events varies among trials and comparisons are complicated by the different terms for describing it. Common terms used to describe the HER1/EGFR-inhibitor associated rash are rash [7], acne [8, 9], acneiform skin reaction [10], acneform rash [11], acneiform follicular rash [12], acne-like rash [4, 13, 14], maculopapular skin rash [15], and monomorphic pustular lesions [6].

The incidence of rash with erlotinib alone (150 mg/day) is 68% using the medDRA^TM term rash not otherwise specified [7], and 75% using any medDRA^TM preferred term containing rash, dermatitis, or acne [16, 17]. Dry skin is reported in 19%-35% of patients receiving erlotinib monotherapy [7, 16, 17]. The incidence of rash with gefitinib monotherapy is 43% and 54% with 250 and 500 mg/day, respectively. Acne and dry skin were categorized separately. Acne occurs in 25% and 33% of patients treated with gefitinib 250 and 500 mg/day, respectively, and dry skin in 13% and 26% [18]. Rash with cetuximab is commonly called acneform rash; it is defined as any event described as acne, rash, maculopapular rash, pustular rash, dry skin, or exfoliative dermatitis. It occurred in 88% of patients treated with cetuximab in combination with irinotecan, and in 90% of patients treated with cetuximab monotherapy [11]. In a phase II trial with panitumumab, 100% of patients had rash, although it is unclear how rash was defined [19].

Rash is generally mild (grade 1) to moderate (grade 2), and severe rash (grade 3/4) is uncommon [7, 11, 16–18]. However, the sometimes variable interpretation of the scales used to grade rash, and also the various terms used to describe it, make it difficult to compare the severity of rash between trials and agents. The National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC) is most commonly used to grade adverse events in clinical trials with HER1/EGFR-targeted agents (Table 3). The attendees thought that the grading system may be improved if grade 2 rash were subdivided based on whether the rash interferes with the patient’s daily life, and if intervention or management is needed. A clear definition of when rash is dose limiting (grade 3 rash) and when dose reduction may need to be considered would also be beneficial. This could be when the patient finds the rash intolerable (either because of pain, itching, or appearance) and symptomatic management has failed. The advisors also noted that rash intensity (determined by factors like number of papules, discomfort caused, and extent of erythema) should be an important component of any grading scale; however, the absolute number of lesions in a patient, without associated physical discomfort, does not necessarily constitute a basis for a dose reduction or delay. Finally, a photo library of grade 1, 2, and 3 rashes would help clinicians to grade rash accurately. These considerations are summarized in Table 4.

It is important to clearly define the likely occurrence and resolution of rash with different agents, so that clinicians know what to expect when using these agents, and so the incidence of rash can be compared with different agents. In addition, when guidelines are available to manage rash, clinicians need to assess and characterize rash accurately and reproducibly so that guidelines can be implemented correctly.

Rash and Response/Survival
Data from several clinical trials with HER1/EGFR-targeted agents show a positive correlation between rash and response and/or survival [2, 3, 27–33]. Two other trials with gefitinib also show a trend toward rash and response [13] and survival [34]. These findings suggest that rash might be a surrogate marker of efficacy. In these trials rash is assessed using NCI-CTC, so the data may be subject to the problems associated with accurately interpreting the criteria for this type of rash discussed earlier.

To find whether rash is an independent surrogate marker of activity and may be used as a tool to predict response, it is essential to analyze the correlation between grade of rash and response/survival in all trials. In addition, two studies to investigate the feasibility of dose-escalating erlotinib until a tolerable rash occurs are in progress in patients with NSCLC and glioma, respectively. Subsequently, a prospective study of dose-adjusted erlotinib would be needed to determine if rash can be used as a tool to predict response. We also need to understand the etiology of rash fully to prove conclusively that rash can predict response.

Etiology and Pathology
Data on the etiology of rash are limited. It has been known for some time that HER1/EGFR is expressed in epidermal and follicular keratinocytes, sebaceous epithelium, eccrine epithelium, dendritic antigen-presenting cells, and various connective tissue cells [35, 36], so these areas are potential targets for a mechanism-based reaction. The exact role of HER1/EGFR in skin is not fully understood although it is involved in many normal epidermal processes [36], and abnormal expression is implicated in epithelial tumor formation [37] and epidermal hyperproliferation disorders such as psoriasis [38].

Preclinical studies predicted a cutaneous effect of HER1/EGFR inhibitor use. Mice with a HER1/EGFR dominant negative mutation have curled whiskers and short hair that becomes progressively sparse. Their hair follicles eventually disappear, accompanied by a macrophage- and multinucleated giant cell-driven inflammatory reaction, and interfollicular epidermal hyperplasia [39]. Mice treated with erlotinib have frequent subcorneal pustules (containing a neutrophilic influx) and inflammation that is usually superficial, but can occasionally involve hair follicles [40]. Despite these studies, animal models provide few clues about the etiology of the rash in humans.

Busam et al. presented the largest study of rash to date [24]. After histological analysis of rash samples from 10 patients receiving cetuximab, they concluded that this rash is characterized by a lymphocytic perifolliculitis or suppurative superficial folliculitis, but has no infectious etiology. They hypothesized that suppurative inflammation occurs in response to follicular rupture. The perifollicular inflammation was more difficult to explain because the follicle is intact; they proposed that it could occur in response to a change in the cutaneous microflora arising from altered follicular growth and differentiation. Several studies also report cases of folliculitis with erlotinib, gefitinib, and cetuximab, several noting neutrophilic involvement or other chronic inflammatory changes [6, 20, 41–43]. In one report, more advanced lesions were associated with destruction of the follicle with perifollicular granuloma formation, dermal edema, and vasodilation [20]. Although some studies state that rash is sterile [20, 41], others report that micro-organisms are present, particularly associated with follicular plugs [24, 42, 43]. Interestingly, several studies show that, unlike acne vulgaris the sebaceous glands are not affected [20, 43, 44]. The stratum corneum of the epidermis is also reported to be thinner, more compact, and without the basket-weave pattern in the skin of patients treated with cetuximab or gefitinib [20, 43, 44].

The histological findings show that, in agreement with clinical observations, the rash has a strong inflammatory element. More studies are required to define the exact histology of the rash (so, clarifying the differences from acne vulgaris), key structures involved, primary cellular mediators, and extent/incidence of secondary infection. In addition, we need to address why rash occurs in specific regions, what determines severity, and why both the location and severity can alter during treatment. Finally, as we have little knowledge of why HER1/EGFR inhibitors can cause inflammatory rash, studies to clarify the relationship between rash etiology and HER1/EGFR inhibition are urgently required. Table 5 shows suggestions for investigating rash etiology.

Acne vulgaris is characterized clinically by both noninflammatory lesions known as comedones (blackheads and whiteheads) as well as inflammatory papules, pustules, and nodules. The rash associated with HER1/EGFR-targeted agents is dominated by pustules that develop an impetiginous honey-combed crust in serious cases. Noninflammatory comedones have not been described. The histopathology of acne vulgaris is characterized by a preclinical stage known as the microcomedo, which is a sebaceous follicle distended by large clumps of abnormally desquamated follicular corneocytes. This precursor stage is not clinically visible and can evolve along two pathways. With increased accumulation of abnormally desquamated corneocytes, sebaceous follicles become distended and clinically visible as noninflammatory comedones. Papules and pustules develop with the influx of neutrophils and lymphocytes. Overgrowth of Propionibacterium acnes causes the inflammatory phase through a variety of mechanisms.

In rash associated with HER1/EGFR-targeted agents, microcomedones and comedones are not seen. Pustules show an intrafollicular collection of neutrophils—the hallmarks of an infectious folliculitis.

These findings clearly indicate that this rash is not acne vulgaris and does not appear to have acne-like pathology/etiology. Hence, it is not surprising that acne medications do not, thus far, seem to be effective and could exacerbate the rash. Therefore, rash medication should not be prescribed on the basis that the rash is like acne vulgaris.

Describing Rash Accurately
Because the etiology and pathology of rash are unclear and require further investigation, we should not describe it in terms that imply a certain pathology or etiology, rather we should use phenotypic terms relating to its appearance and location. Recommended terms are pustular/papular rash, pustular eruption, or follicular and intrafollicular pustular eruption. In the future, it is likely that improved understanding of rash will enable us to name it based on its pathology and etiology. Preliminary data indicate that it is a new dermatological entity, but more studies are required to confirm this.

Managing Patients with Rash
At the time of this meeting there have been no controlled clinical trials of agents for treating the rash associated with HER1/EGFR inhibitors, so we cannot make evidence-based recommendations for rash management. A key recommendation from the Forum was for investigators to begin carefully controlled efficacy trials of agents to treat rash. To help clinicians we used available information, knowledge of rash’s inflammatory nature, and the unpublished experience of the oncologists and dermatologists at the Forum to develop broad suggestions to assist when a patient presents with rash and when designing trials to investigate agents for rash management. As more HER1/EGFR-targeted agents are licensed and their use becomes more widespread, evidence-based guidelines for rash management will be essential.

Diagnosing HER1/EGFR Inhibitor-Associated Rash and When to Refer to a Dermatologist
HER1/EGFR inhibitor-associated rash has a characteristic pustular/papular appearance, and usually involves the face, head, and upper torso. Patients should be referred to a dermatologist if lesions have an uncharacteristic appearance or distribution, or if there is necrosis, blistering, or petechial/purpuric lesions. Patients treated with HER1/EGFR-targeted agents may occasionally suffer other dermatological conditions. Pruritus, dry skin, and erythema are relatively common and expected, but unrelated complications (e.g., simplex and herpes zoster) may occur. These are rare and appear unrelated to rash. The expected incidence is hard to quantify accurately as patients with dermatological conditions are excluded from clinical trials with HER1/EGFRtargeted agents. Patients with atypical manifestations should be referred to a dermatologist.

Inflammatory-based pustules should be sterile, but experience among the group shows that secondary infections are more common than previously described. Some organisms (e.g., Staphylococcus aureus) produce a classic impetigo appearance, indicated by a yellowish/brown crust overlying inflammatory lesions, significant oozing of fluid from lesions, or an abrupt change in the appearance of lesions (particularly if they differ from those in other areas). Cellulitis typically presents with a localized area of warmth, erythema, and tenderness, and can be associated with fever. The most common presentation is recognized only by an increase in pustules. However, the signs of secondary infection can be subtle, especially in patients who are neutropenic or taking systemic steroids. The best way to identify secondarily infected rash is to inspect the rash regularly. Culturing the pustules or crusting can be considered if the rash worsens.

Patients taking steroids for their cancer may suffer steroid-induced acne. This may result in its being confused with HER1/EGFR inhibitor-associated rash because of its pustular nature. Steroid-induced acne is a monomorphous eruption with widespread 2–3-mm firm, erythematous papules primarily on the trunk. It is differentiated from rash because the papules are firm to the touch and any attempt to open and culture will not reveal any purulent material, there is less erythema, and it occurs primarily on the trunk (Table 6).

Analgesia
Some patients report that HER1/EGFR inhibitor-associated rash is painful. This is particularly common in patients with rash that is accompanied by erythema/inflammation. If the rash is painful, consider prescribing standard analgesia before trying other management options. If the pain is localized or becomes more severe, then cellulitis should be considered.

	EVALUATING AGENTS TO TREAT RASH

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction HER1/EGFR-Inhibitor Rash... Rash: A Common Side... Evaluating Agents to Treat... Future Direction Potential Conflicts of Interest References

 
Potential agents for rash management fall into two categories: A) agents based on etiology, and B) symptomatic, empirical, nonvalidated therapies. As discussed previously, our understanding of rash etiology is limited, preventing the identification of agents for investigation based on etiology. However, we hope our knowledge will improve and novel routes of investigation established. For example, agents that reverse HER1/EGFR inhibition in the skin, block damaging cytokine cascades, or treat secondary infections based on the identification of exact bacterial etiology may be considered in the future.

Currently, agents have been selected for investigation based on symptoms. Because there are no controlled trials, the efficacy of all the agents is unproven. There are anecdotal reports of treatments, such as topical and systemic antibiotics, topical and systemic corticosteroids, retinoids, and antihistamines [5, 20, 24, 41, 45–47], and one preliminary report from an uncontrolled trial of alpha-hydroxy acids with or without gentamicin and betamethasone [48]. While it is encouraging that rash treatment is being investigated, the lack of a control, especially since rash resolves spontaneously in many patients, means the effectiveness of this combination remains unclear and its use in the clinic cannot be recommended at this time. Dose reduction or interruption is commonly used in clinical trials of oral HER1/EGFR inhibitors to manage adverse events. In the phase III trial of erlotinib 150 mg/day in patients with advanced NSCLC following chemotherapy, dose reductions in increments of 50 mg (to a minimum of 50 mg/day) were permitted for hematologic and other toxicities not controlled by optimal supportive care or not tolerated by the patient. In this trial, 6% of erlotinib-treated patients had dose reductions because of grade 3/4 rash, and only 1% of patients withdrew as a result of grade 3/4 rash or diarrhea. The findings from this large phase III trial suggest that adjusting the dose of erlotinib is a useful approach for managing severe rash with this agent [21, 49].

A key recommendation was for investigators to begin carefully controlled efficacy trials of agents to treat rash. As the normal course of rash is to wax and wane, well-controlled trials are necessary to determine the efficacy of marginally effective therapies. An important step toward identifying effective agents is to find out if animal models could be used to test therapies, or at least narrow options before beginning clinical trials. We hope new data will enable us to identify potentially active agents based on rash etiology. To assist the evaluation of agents to treat rash, we encourage investigators to photograph rash so there is a lasting record of the effect of treatment.

Trial Design
To test the effectiveness of topical agents, we recommend that investigators design trials where one side of the face/body is treated for a week (consider using an emollient on the other side). If the agent is effective, continue treatment on the whole face/body. Topical agents could be ineffective because they may not penetrate the skin deep enough. However, they may be useful before a severe rash appears. Finally, secondary infection is an important consideration. More frequent culturing of pustules will enable us to assess the extent of secondary infection, the type of colonizing bacteria, and treatments.

Agents for Consideration
Based on our albeit limited knowledge of rash pathology and etiology, and anecdotal reports of agents used to manage rash, agents that have or could be considered for rash management were discussed (Table 8).

Topical Corticosteroids
The experience of the attendees suggests that topical corticosteroids are largely ineffective in patients with advanced/severe rash. However, one hypothesis is that they may have some efficacy if used early in therapy (in patients with mild rash), or after antibiotics, to combat inflammation and prevent infection. So far, there have been no clinical trials to test this hypothesis. If this hypothesis were investigated in a clinical trial, consider high potency agents like clobetasol propionate (Temovate^®). Current evidence indicates topical corticosteroids can be used on the face as concerns about skin thinning are overstated. Atrophy occurs only after prolonged use and reverses when treatment is stopped.

Systemic Immunomodulatory Agents
There is some rationale for studies investigating short-course systemic steroids for patients with severe rash that is causing significant physical discomfort. However, there are no data from clinical trials to support this approach or confirm that such an approach would not interfere with the therapeutic efficacy of the HER1/EGFR inhibitor. Therefore, such an approach cannot be recommended for routine clinical use. Before investigating longer-term or the more general use of systemic immunomodulation, the effect on HER1/EGFR inhibition in the tumor needs to be established.

Topical Immunomodulatory Agents
Studying topical immunomodulatory agents (such as pimecrolimus [Elidel^®]) would be of interest, and, considering the inflammatory nature of the rash, warrants clinical investigation. However, we currently have no clinical data on which of these agents to recommend except in a clinical trial. A phase II trial of Elidel^® in patients with HER1/EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor-associated rash will start soon.

Both in clinical trials or practice, if one chooses to try these agents, we recommended that one side of the face and/or body only should be initially treated to see if the treatment is effective, ineffective, or worsens the rash. Until/unless effectiveness is demonstrated and documented in this manner, it is impossible to establish if the patient should continue the topical treatment, since the rash can improve and worsen spontaneously. It is noteworthy that at the time of writing, none of the authors have demonstrated clinical benefit with any topical therapy when evaluated in this manner, i.e., we have yet to see a patient in whom treating one side with a topical therapy substantially improved the rash on that side compared with the other.

Retinoids
The attendees suggest that topical retinoids should be avoided, as their skin-drying effects are likely to exacerbate rash. To date, there are no data to suggest that topical retinoids are beneficial in this setting.

Other Acne Medications
Because the pathologies of acne vulgaris and HER1/EGFR inhibitor-associated rash are different, acne-specific medications should not be prescribed because the rash appears to be like acne vulgaris. For example, benzoyl peroxide should not be used, as this will aggravate dry skin. Alpha-hydroxy acids have been investigated in patients with grade 1 rash in a clinical trial [48]. Because the trial was uncontrolled, it is unclear whether the improvement noted was a result of the treatment or just the natural course of rash.

Antipruritic Therapy
Patients often find pruritus a disturbing, chronic symptom and unfortunately there is no effective treatment. Antihistamines, such as diphenhydramine (Benadryl^®) or hydroxyzine hydrochloride (Atarax^®), can be considered, but their effectiveness is anticipated to be marginal.

Secondarily Infected Rash
As discussed, secondary infection appears to be more common than previously thought and can make the rash worse, particularly in appearance. To reduce the likelihood of secondary infection, consider intranasal mupirocin (Bactroban Nasal^®) applied once daily to each nostril. Secondarily infected rash should be treated with a short course of oral antibiotics; consider tetracyclines such as minocycline (Minocin^®) because of their proposed weak anti-inflammatory effects and reasonably good activity against S. aureus, although many different antibiotics may be effective. Although some weak anecdotal evidence suggests that topical antibiotics may be effective, e.g., topical clindamycin (Cleocin^®, Clindaderm^®), there have not been any clinical trials, and no cases showing clear benefit. Topical antibiotics should be evaluated in a controlled clinical trial, considering the design recommendations discussed previously. If antibiotic resistance is suspected, culture the pustules to determine the bacterial strain before treating. If there is a clinical diagnosis of impetigo, or if secondary infection with S. aureus is confirmed, consider topical mupirocin (Bactroban^®) (Table 8).

If agents are used outside a trial setting, their effectiveness should be evaluated after 1 week, and treatment continued for another week. If there is no improvement after 2 weeks, the treatment should be considered ineffective, and discontinued.

	FUTURE DIRECTION

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction HER1/EGFR-Inhibitor Rash... Rash: A Common Side... Evaluating Agents to Treat... Future Direction Potential Conflicts of Interest References

 
During the HER1/EGFR Inhibitor Rash Management Forum it became clear how little we know about this common side effect. The process of education begins by sharing our limited knowledge of this rash with others treating these patients. This ensures that patients receive the best possible advice and treatment for this sometimes distressing side effect in what are often the final months of their lives. The next stage is to educate ourselves further so we can understand the cause of this rash, and provide effective, evidence-based treatment recommendations. Conducting well-controlled clinical trial to evaluate agents is essential if we are to achieve this goal. Finally, we need to establish whether rash can improve the efficacy of these agents. If it can, it will be a powerful tool in ensuring that they have maximum benefit. It will also bring the challenge of preventing rash from becoming dose limiting. Developing ways to manage rash effectively is vital if we are to meet this challenge.

	POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction HER1/EGFR-Inhibitor Rash... Rash: A Common Side... Evaluating Agents to Treat... Future Direction Potential Conflicts of Interest References

 
Dr. Pérez-Soler: Grants/Research support from OSIP and NIH; Stockholder: OSIP, Genentech, Amgen, Novartis, Lilly, Transave, AstraZeneca; Consultant: OSIP, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Amgen, Novartis, Alza, Lilly, BMS, Transave; Other financial/material support: OSIP, Genentech, Amgen, Novartis, Lilly, BMS, Transave, AstraZeneca. Dr. Temel: Research in rash management supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Soulières: Honoraria for editorial boards from Roche Oncology.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction HER1/EGFR-Inhibitor Rash... Rash: A Common Side... Evaluating Agents to Treat... Future Direction Potential Conflicts of Interest References

 
The HER1/EGFR-Inhibitor Rash Management Forum was funded by a grant from Genentech Inc., OSI Pharmaceuticals Inc., and F. Hoffmann-La Roche. The authors would like to thank the oncologists and dermatologists who attended and contributed to this Forum.

	REFERENCES

Top Learning Objectives Abstract Introduction HER1/EGFR-Inhibitor Rash... Rash: A Common Side... Evaluating Agents to Treat... Future Direction Potential Conflicts of Interest References

 

1. Shepherd FA, Pereira J, Ciuleanu TE et al. A randomized placebo-controlled trial of erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following failure of 1st line or 2nd line chemotherapy. A National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC CTG) trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004;23:7022.
2. Clark G, Perez-Soler R, Siu L et al. Rash severity is predictive of increased survival with erlotinib HCI. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22:196.
3. Saltz L, Kies M, Abbruzzese JL et al. The presence and intensity of the cetuximab-induced acne-like rash predicts increased survival in studies across multiple malignancies. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22:204.
4. Ranson M, Hammond L, Ferry D et al. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Herbst R, Maddox AM, Rothenberg ML et al. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Hidalgo M, Siu L, Nemunaitis J et al. Phase I and pharmacologic study of OSI-774, an epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid malignancies. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3267–3279.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Gordon A, Finkler N, Edwards R et al. Efficacy and safety of erlotinib HCl, an epidermal growth factor receptor (HER1/EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma: results from a phase II multicenter study. Int J Gynecol Oncol. (In press 2004).
8. Saltz LB, Meropol NJ, Loehrer PJ Sr. et al. Phase II trial of cetuximab in patients with refractory colorectal cancer that expresses the epidermal growth factor receptor. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:1201–1208.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Fukuoka M, Yano S, Giaccone G et al. Multi-institutional randomized phase II trial of gefitinib for previously treated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2237–2246.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Tewes M, Schleucher N, Dirsch O et al. Results of a phase I trial of the humanized anti epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody EMD 72000 in patients with EGFR expressing solid tumors. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001;20:378.
11. Erbitux^® [package insert] Cetuximab prescribing information. New York, NY: ImClone Systems Inc., 2004. http://www.erbitux.com.
12. Robert F, Ezekiel MP, Spencer SA et al. Phase I study of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody cetuximab in combination with radiation therapy in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3234–3243.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Kris MG, Natale RB, Herbst RS et al. Efficacy of gefitinib, an inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase, in symptomatic patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 2003;290:2149–2158.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Saltz L, Rubin MS, Hochster H et al. Acne-like rash predicts response in patients treated with Cetuximab (IMC-C225) plus Irinotecan (CPT-11) in CPT-11-refractory colorectal cancer (CRC) that expresses epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Clin Cancer Res 2001;7:3766s.
15. De Bono JS, Schwartz G, Monroe P et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic (PK) study of oral GW572016, a potent reversible dual inhibitor of both erbB1 and erbB2 tyrosine kinase (TK), administered in combination with capecitabine. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22:225.
16. Perez-Soler R, Chachoua A, Hammond L et al. Determinants of tumor response and survival with erlotinib. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3238–3247.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Soulieres D, Senzer NN, Vokes EE et al. Multicenter phase II study of erlotinib, an oral epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell cancer of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:77–85.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Iressa^® [package insert] Gefitnib prescribing information. Wilmington, DE: Astra Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, 2004. http://www.iressa.com.
19. Meropol NJ, Berlin J, Hecht JR et al. Multicenter study of ABX-EGF monotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22:256.
20. Van Doorn R, Kirtschig G, Scheffer E et al. 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.[CrossRef][Medline]
21. Shepherd FA, Pereira J, Ciuleanu TE et al. A randomized placebo-controlled trial of erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following failure of 1st line or 2nd line chemotherapy. A National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC CTG) trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004;23:7022.
22. Ranson M, Herbst R, Fukuoka M et al. Skin toxicity is not a clinically meaningful prognostic marker for tumour response to gefitinib (‘Iressa’; ZD1839) in pretreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Second International Symposium on Signal Transduction Modulators in Cancer Therapy, Amsterdam. 2003:C.02.
23. Schoffski P, Lutz MP, Folprecht G et al. Cetuximab (C225) plus irinotecan (CPT-11) plus infusional 5FU-folinic acid (FA) is safe and active in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC), that expresses epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2002;21:159a.
24. Busam KJ, Capodieci P, Motzer R et al. Cutaneous side-effects in cancer patients treated with the antiepidermal growth factor receptor antibody C225. Br J Dermatol 2001;144:1169–1176.[CrossRef][Medline]
25. Monti M, Mancini LL, Ferrari B et al. Complications of therapy and a diagnostic dilemma case. Case 2. Cutaneous toxicity induced by cetuximab. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4651–4653.[Free Full Text]
26. Boucher KW, Davidson K, Mirakhur B et al. Paronychia induced by cetuximab, an antiepidermal growth factor receptor antibody. J Am Acad Dermatol 2002;47:632–633.[Medline]
27. Saltz L, Hochster H, Tchekmeydian NS et al. Acne-like rash predicts response in patients treated with cetuximab (IMC-C225) plus irinotecan (CPT-11) in CPT-11-refractory colorectal cancer (CRC) that expresses epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Proc NCI-AACR-EORTC 2001;559.
28. Saltz L, Rubin M, Hochster H et al. Cetuximab (IMC-C225) plus irinotecan (CPT-11) is active in CPT-11-refractory colorectal cancer (CRC) that expresses epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001;20:2a.
29. Rowinsky E, Schwartz G, Dutcher J et al. ABX-EGF, a fully human anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFr) monoclonal antibody: phase II clinical trials in renal cell cancer (RCC). Eur J Cancer 2002;38(suppl 7):57.
30. Janne PA, Gurubhagavatula S, Yeap BY et al. 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.[CrossRef][Medline]
31. Cohen MH, Williams GA, Sridhara R et al. United States Food and Drug Administration Drug Approval summary: Gefitinib (ZD1839; Iressa) tablets. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:1212–1218.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Park J, Park BB, Lee SH et al. Gefitinib (‘Iressa’, ZD1839) monotherapy as a salvage regimen for previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Lung Cancer 2003;41(suppl 2):S249.
33. Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S et al. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irmotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351:337–345.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
34. Rich JN, Reardon DA, Peery T et al. Phase II trial of gefitinib in recurrent glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:133–142.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
35. King LE Jr., Gates RE, Stoscheck CM et al. The EGF/TGF alpha receptor in skin. J Invest Dermatol 1990;94(suppl 6):164S–170S.[CrossRef][Medline]
36. Jost M, Kari C, Rodeck U. The EGF receptor—an essential regulator of multiple epidermal functions. Eur J Dermatol 2000;10:505–510.[Medline]
37. Sibilia M, Fleischmann A, Behrens A et al. The EGF receptor provides an essential survival signal for SOS-dependent skin tumor development. Cell 2000;102:211–220.[CrossRef][Medline]
38. King LE Jr., Gates RE, Stoscheck CM et al. Epidermal growth factor/transforming growth factor alpha receptors and psoriasis. J Invest Dermatol 1990;95:10S–12S.[CrossRef][Medline]
39. Murillas R, Larcher F, Conti CJ et al. Expression of a dominant negative mutant of epidermal growth factor receptor in the epidermis of transgenic mice elicits striking alterations in hair follicle development and skin structure. EMBO J 1995;14:5216–5223.[Medline]
40. Higgins B, Smith B, Beck G et al. Antitumor activity of the HER1/EGFR-TK inhibitor Tarceva (erlotinib, OSI-774) in human tumor xenograft models. EORTC-NCI-AACR 2002;203.
41. Kimyai-Asadi A, Jih MH. Follicular toxic effects of chimeric anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody cetuximab used to treat human solid tumors. Arch Dermatol 2002;138:129–131.[Free Full Text]
42. Albanell J, Rojo F, Baselga J. Pharmacodynamic studies with the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor ZD1839. Semin Oncol 2001;28(suppl 16):56–66.
43. Baselga J, Rischin D, Ranson M et al. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
44. Albanell J, Rojo F, Averbuch S et al. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
45. Herbst RS, LoRusso PM, Purdom M et al. Dermatologic side effects associated with gefitinib therapy: clinical experience and management. Clin Lung Cancer 2003;4:366–369.[Medline]
46. Walon L, Gilbeau C, Lachapelle J-M. Éruptions acnéiformes induites par le cétuximab. Ann Dermatol Venereol 2003;30:443–446.
47. Pallis AG, Mavroudis D, Androulakis N et al. ZD1839, a novel, oral epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, as salvage treatment in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Experience from a single center participating in a compassionate use program. Lung Cancer 2003;40:301–307.[Medline]
48. Cortesi E, De Pasquale Ceratti A, D’Auria G et al. Management of cutaneous adverse effects during treatment with ZD1839 in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): surprising efficacy of early local treatment. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004;23:638.
49. Tarceva^TM, data on file, Melville, NY: OSI Pharmaceuticals, 2004.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C M West, L Joseph, and S Bhana Epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted therapy Br. J. Radiol., October 1, 2008; 81(Special_Issue_1): S36 - S44. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. N. Schwartz Management of early and advanced colorectal cancer: Therapeutic issues Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., June 1, 2008; 65(11_Supplement_4): S8 - S14. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. R. Tan, S. M. Steinberg, A. L. Parr, D. Nguyen, and S. X. Yang Markers in the epidermal growth factor receptor pathway and skin toxicity during erlotinib treatment Ann. Onc., January 1, 2008; 19(1): 185 - 190. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. E. Stinchcombe and M. A. Socinski Considerations for Second-Line Therapy of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Oncologist, January 1, 2008; 13(suppl_1): 28 - 36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Pivarcsi, A. Muller, A. Hippe, J. Rieker, A. van Lierop, M. Steinhoff, S. Seeliger, R. Kubitza, U. Pippirs, S. Meller, et al. Tumor immune escape by the loss of homeostatic chemokine expression PNAS, November 27, 2007; 104(48): 19055 - 19060. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. Wacker, T. Nagrani, J. Weinberg, K. Witt, G. Clark, and P. J. Cagnoni Correlation between Development of Rash and Efficacy in Patients Treated with the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Erlotinib in Two Large Phase III Studies Clin. Cancer Res., July 1, 2007; 13(13): 3913 - 3921. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. J. Lynch Jr., E. S. Kim, B. Eaby, J. Garey, D. P. West, and M. E. Lacouture Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitor-Associated Cutaneous Toxicities: An Evolving Paradigm in Clinical Management Oncologist, May 1, 2007; 12(5): 610 - 621. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. S. Viele Managing oral chemotherapy: The healthcare practitioner's role Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., May 1, 2007; 64(9_Supplement_5): S25 - S32. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. H. Schiffer, E. C. Reding, S. R. Fuhs, Q. Lu, F. Piu, S. Wong, P.-L. H. Littler, D. M. Weiner, W. Keefe, P. K. Tan, et al. Pharmacology and Signaling Properties of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Isoforms Studied by Bioluminescence Resonance Energy Transfer Mol. Pharmacol., February 1, 2007; 71(2): 508 - 518. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. S. Mitra and R. Simcock Erlotinib Induced Skin Rash Spares Skin in Previous Radiotherapy Field J. Clin. Oncol., June 1, 2006; 24(16): e28 - e29. [Full Text] [PDF]

D. G.P. Allan Nimotuzumab: Evidence of Clinical Benefit Without Rash Oncologist,