Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 21, Issue 10, pp 2679–2686 | Cite as

Docetaxel-induced skin toxicities in breast cancer patients subsequent to paclitaxel shortage: a case series and literature review

  • Ming J. Poi
  • Michael Berger
  • Maryam Lustberg
  • Rachel Layman
  • Charles L. Shapiro
  • Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy
  • Ewa Mrozek
  • Erin Olson
  • Robert WesolowskiEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

As the result of a recent national shortage in paclitaxel, some patients who were receiving or scheduled to receive weekly paclitaxel were converted to every 3-week (q3w) docetaxel with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support. Our institution noted higher than expected incidence of severe skin toxicity events attributable to docetaxel during the shortage period among our breast cancer patients. In this report, we summarize the clinical course of the first five cases, review the literature surrounding docetaxel-induced skin toxicity, and offer possible prevention and treatment strategies to improve docetaxel tolerability.

Methods

The observation period for this case series was August 1 through October 21, 2011. All patients treated with docetaxel were identified from our electronic medical record. Operable stage I–III breast cancer patients who received ≥1 dose of docetaxel monotherapy at 75–100 mg/m2 q3w were included in this study. The cases of grade 3–4 docetaxel-induced skin toxicities identified by the treating oncologists were then contacted and signed an informed consent through an Institutional Review Board-approved protocol.

Results

Thirty-four patients met the inclusion criteria. Five patients (14.7 %) experienced grade 3 skin toxicity events attributable to docetaxel, a significantly higher rate than previously reported for docetaxel dosed at 75–100 mg/m2.

Conclusions

Docetaxel-induced dermatologic toxicity is well characterized; nonetheless, its etiology is largely unknown and evidence-based prevention and management strategies are lacking. This report shows that the use of docetaxel 75–100 mg/m2 q3w subsequent to dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide regimen can lead to unacceptable rate of severe skin toxicity.

Keywords

Taxane Hand–foot syndrome Breast cancer Chemotherapy toxicity 

Notes

Conflict of interest

All other authors state that they have no conflict of interest, nothing to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2011) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Breast Cancer. 2011; v2: BINV-K. Available at: www.nccn.org/. Accessed 15 Dec 2011
  2. 2.
    Citron ML, Berry DA, Cirrincione C et al (2003) Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of intergroup trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B Trial 9741. J Clin Oncol 2:1431–1439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sparano JA, Wang M, Martino S et al (2008) Weekly paclitaxel in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 358:1663–1671CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harvey V, Mouridsen H, Semiglazov V et al (2006) Phase III trial comparing three doses of docetaxel for second-line treatment of advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 4:4963–4970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tabernero J, Climent MA, Lluch A et al (2004) A multicentre, randomised phase II study of weekly or 3-weekly docetaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 15:1358–1365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chan S, Friedrichs K, Noel D, 303 Study Group et al (1999) Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus doxorubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 17:2341–2354PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nabholtz JM, Senn HJ, Bezwoda WR et al (1999) Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus mitomycin plus vinblastine in patients with metastatic breast cancer progressing despite previous anthracycline-containing chemotherapy. 304 Study Group. J Clin Oncol 7:1413–1424Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Swain SM, Jeong JH, Geyer CE Jr et al (2010) Longer therapy, iatrogenic amenorrhea, and survival in early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 362:2053–2065CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sanofi-Aventis Medical Information Services (2011) Information on file. Accessed 14 Sept 2011Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burstein HJ, Manola J, Younger J et al (2000) Docetaxel administered on a weekly basis for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 18:1212–1219PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ford HE, Yap YS, Miles DW et al (2006) A phase II study of weekly docetaxel in patients with anthracycline pretreated metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 58:809–815CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rivera E, Mejia JA, Arun BK et al (2008) Phase 3 study comparing the use of docetaxel on an every-3-week versus weekly schedule in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Cancer 112:1455–1461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stemmler HJ, Harbeck N, Gröll de Rivera I et al (2010) Prospective multicenter randomized phase III study of weekly versus standard docetaxel (D2) for first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Oncology 79:197–203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taxotere (docetaxel) Injection [prescribing information] (2010) Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, BridgewaterGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hui YF, Giles FJ, Cortes JE (2002) Chemotherapy-induced palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome—recall following different chemotherapy agents. Invest New Drugs 20:49–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chew L, Chuen VS (2009) Cutaneous reaction associated with weekly docetaxel administration. J Oncol Pharm Pract 15:29–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nagore E, Insa A, Sanmartin O (2000) Antineoplastic therapy-induced palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia (‘hand–foot’) syndrome. Incidence, recognition and management. Am J Clin Dermatol 1:225–234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Webster-Gandy JD, How C, Harrold K (2007) Palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE): a literature review with commentary on experience in a cancer centre. Eur J Oncol Nurs 11:238–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Childress J, Lokich J (2003) Cutaneous hand and foot toxicity associated with cancer chemotherapy. Am J Clin Oncol 26:435–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Battafarano DF, Zimmerman GC, Older SA et al (1995) Docetaxel (Taxotere) associated scleroderma-like changes of the lower extremities. A report of three cases. Cancer 76:110–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fitzpatrick JE (1993) The cutaneous histopathology of chemotherapeutic reactions. J Cutan Pathol 20:1–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jacobi U, Waibler E, Schulze P et al (2005) Release of doxorubicin in sweat: first step to induce the palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome? Ann Oncol 16:1210–1211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cox GJ, Robertson DB (1986) Toxic erythema of palms and soles associated with high-dose mercaptopurine chemotherapy. Arch Dermatol 122:1413–1414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bardia A, Loprinzi CL, Goetz MP (2006) Hand–foot syndrome after dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: a case series. J Clin Oncol 24:e18–e19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marre F, Sanderink GJ, de Sousa G et al (1996) Hepatic biotransformation of docetaxel (Taxotere) in vitro: involvement of the CYP3A subfamily in humans. Cancer Res 56:1296–1302PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kawaguchi K, Ishiguro H, Morita S, Japan Breast Cancer Research Group (JBCRG) et al (2011) Correlation between docetaxel-induced skin toxicity and the use of steroids and H2 blockers: a multi-institution survey. Breast Cancer Res Treat 130:627–634CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Di Leo A, Crown J, Nogaret JM et al (2000) A feasibility study evaluating docetaxel-based sequential and combination regimens in the adjuvant therapy of node-positive breast cancer. Ann Oncol 11:169–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Miller KD, McCaskill-Stevens W, Sisk J et al (1999) Combination versus sequential doxorubicin and docetaxel as primary chemotherapy for breast cancer: a randomized pilot trial of the Hoosier Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 17:3033–3037PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schwartz J, Domchek SM, Hwang WT et al (2005) Evaluation of anemia, neutropenia and skin toxicities in standard or dose-dense doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC)-paclitaxel or docetaxel adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Ann Oncol 16:247–252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    von Minckwitz G, Raab G, Caputo A et al (2005) Doxorubicin with cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel every 21 days compared with doxorubicin and docetaxel every 14 days as preoperative treatment in operable breast cancer: the GEPARDUO study of the German Breast Group. J Clin Oncol 23:2676–2685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cooper BW, Radivoyevitch T, Overmoyer BA et al (2006) Phase II study of dose-dense sequential doxorubicin and docetaxel for patients with advanced operable and inoperable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 97:311–318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lambert-Falls R, Modugno S (2007) Toxicity of dose-dense docetaxel followed by doxorubicin with cyclophosphamide as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer in a phase II study. Clin Breast Cancer 7:697–704CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Puhalla S, Mrozek E, Young D et al (2008) Randomized phase II adjuvant trial of dose-dense docetaxel before or after doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide in axillary node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 26:1691–1697CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Antolín S, Mel R, Ramos M et al (2011) A dose-dense schedule of docetaxel followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer: results from a phase II study. Clin Transl Oncol 13:686–691CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yoshimoto N, Yamashita T, Fujita T et al (2010) Impact of prophylactic pyridoxine on occurrence of hand–foot syndrome in patients receiving capecitabine for advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer 17:298–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fabian CJ, Molina R, Slavik M et al (1990) Pyridoxine therapy for palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia associated with continuous 5-fluorouracil infusion. Invest New Drugs 8:57–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kang YK, Lee SS, Yoon DH et al (2010) Pyridoxine is not effective to prevent hand–foot syndrome associated with capecitabine therapy: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Clin Oncol 28:3824–3829CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Scotte F, Tourani J-M, Banu E et al (2005) Multicenter study of a frozen glove to prevent docetaxel-induced onycholysis and cutaneous toxicity of the hand. J Clin Oncol 23:4424–4429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Scotte F, Banu E, Medioni J et al (2008) Matched case–control phase 2 study to evaluate the use of a frozen sock to prevent docetaxel-induced onycholysis and cutaneous toxicity of the foot. Cancer 112:1625–1631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Grevelman EG, Breed WP (2005) Prevention of chemotherapy-induced hair loss by scalp cooling. Ann Oncol 16:352–358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    van den Hurk CJ, Peerbooms M, van de Poll-Franse LV et al (2012) Scalp cooling for hair preservation and associated characteristics in 1411 chemotherapy patients—results of the Dutch Scalp Cooling Registry. Acta Oncol 51:497–504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lopez AM, Wallace L, Dorr RT et al (1999) Topical DMSO treatment for pegylated liposomal doxorubicin-induced palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 44:303–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kara IO, Sahin B, Erkisi M (2006) Palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia due to docetaxel-capecitabine therapy is treated with vitamin E without dose reduction. Breast 15:414–424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gressett SM, Stanford BL, Hardwicke F (2006) Management of hand–foot syndrome induced by capecitabine. J Oncol Pharm Pract 12:131–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    von Moos R, Thuerlimann BJ, Aapro M et al (2008) Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin-associated hand–foot syndrome: recommendations of an international panel of experts. Eur J Cancer 44:781–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ming J. Poi
    • 1
  • Michael Berger
    • 2
  • Maryam Lustberg
    • 3
  • Rachel Layman
    • 4
  • Charles L. Shapiro
    • 5
  • Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy
    • 6
  • Ewa Mrozek
    • 7
  • Erin Olson
    • 8
  • Robert Wesolowski
    • 9
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of PharmacyThe Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research InstituteColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Department of PharmacyThe Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research InstituteColumbusUSA
  3. 3.Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal MedicineThe Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute at The Ohio State University Medical CenterColumbusUSA
  4. 4.Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal MedicineThe Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute at The Ohio State University Medical CenterColumbusUSA
  5. 5.Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal MedicineThe Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute at The Ohio State University Medical CenterColumbusUSA
  6. 6.Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal MedicineThe Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute at The Ohio State University Medical CenterColumbusUSA
  7. 7.Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal MedicineThe Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute at The Ohio State University Medical CenterColumbusUSA
  8. 8.Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal MedicineThe Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute at The Ohio State University Medical CenterColumbusUSA
  9. 9.Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal MedicineThe Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute at The Ohio State University Medical CenterColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations