Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Chemotherapy-induced dermatological toxicity: frequencies and impact on quality of life in women’s cancers. Results of a prospective study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The study aimed to determine the prevalence of dermatological side effects and its impact on quality of life in patients receiving systemic chemotherapy for women’s cancers.

Materials and methods

A prospective study was conducted on patients with histologically confirmed advanced women’s cancers who were deemed candidates for adjuvant or palliative chemotherapy. Patients were systemically examined for skin, hair, and nail side effects. The impact of those side effects on their quality of life was assessed using the health-related quality of life score (HRQL).

Results

Between April 2001 and October 2001, 91 patients received 1 to 17 (median 4) courses of chemotherapy. Malignancies included breast cancer (n = 39, 43%), ovarian cancer (n = 32, 35%), cervical cancer (n = 12, 13%), endometrial cancer (n = 5, 6%), fallopian tube cancer (n = 2, 2%), and vaginal cancer (n = 1, 1%). Chemotherapy agents included taxanes (n = 42, 46%), PEG doxorubicin (n = 17, 7%), other anthracyclines (epirubicin and doxorubicin; n = 6, 19%), topotecan (n = 13, 14%), and other agents (n = 13, 14%). Overall incidence of skin, nail, and hair side effects was 86.8% (n = 79). Seventeen patients (18.7%) developed a palmo-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE), and nine of those (53%) were of grade 3 in common toxicity criteria scale (NCI). Twenty-one patients (23.1%) developed nail changes such as subungual hematomas, onycholysis, and leukonychias or nail loss, while 69 (75.8%) developed hair loss. There was a higher incidence of PPE in patients receiving chemotherapy for palliation rather than cure (percent over percent, p < 0.001, Fisher’s exact test). Using the HRQL score, skin changes were the most frequently reported unpleasant side effect (34.1%), and of those patients who developed PPE, this was reported by n = 8 (47%) as the most unpleasant.

Conclusions

Dermatological chemotherapy side effects are frequent after treatment of women’s cancers and have a major impact on quality of life as assessed by HRQL. Counseling of patients with women’s cancers and the profile of side effects of chemotherapeutic agents should be considered before considering an adjuvant or palliative chemotherapy regimen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anonymous (1998) Toxicity of fluorouracil in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: effect of administration schedule and prognostic factors. Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer. J Clin Oncol 16(11):3537–3541

  2. Chiara S, Nobile MT, Barzacchi C, Sanguineti O, Vincenti M, Di Somma C, Meszaros P, Rosso R (1997) Hand–foot syndrome induced by high-dose, short-term, continuous 5-fluorouracil infusion. Eur J Cancer 33(6):967–969

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chiewchanvit S, Noppakun K, Kanchanarattanakorn K (2004) Mucocutaneous complications of chemotherapy in 74 patients from Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital. J Med Assoc Thail 87(5):508–514

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chu CY, Yang CH, Yang CY, Hsiao GH, Chiu HC (2000) Fixed erythrodysaesthesia plaque due to intravenous injection of docetaxel. Br J Dermatol 142(4):808–811

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Comandone A, Bretti S, La Grotta G, Manzoni S, Bonardi G, Berardo R, Bumma C (1993) Palmar–plantar erythrodysestasia syndrome associated with 5-fluorouracil treatment. Anticancer Res 13(5C):1781–1783

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. DeSpain JD (1992) Dermatologic toxicity of chemotherapy. Semin Oncol 19(5):501–507

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Drake RD, Lin WM, King M, Farrar D, Miller DS, Coleman RL (2004) Oral dexamethasone attenuates doxil-induced palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesias in patients with recurrent gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol 94(2):320–324

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. EORTC (2006) EORTC QLQ-C30 Questionnaire V3.0

  9. Essex (2000) Caelyx, Wissenschaftliche Produktinformationen

  10. Fitzpatrick JE (1993) The cutaneous histopathology of chemotherapeutic reactions. J Cutan Pathol 20(1):1–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Flory SM, Solimando DA Jr, Webster GF, Dunton CJ, Neufeld JM, Haffey MB (1999) Onycholysis associated with weekly administration of paclitaxel. Ann Pharmacother 33(5):584–586

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gabizon AA (2001) Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin: metamorphosis of an old drug into a new form of chemotherapy. Cancer Invest 19(4):424–436

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gordon AN, Fleagle JT, Guthrie D, Parkin DE, Gore ME, Lacave AJ (2001) Recurrent epithelial ovarian carcinoma: a randomized phase III study of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus topotecan. J Clin Oncol 19(14):3312–3322

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gordon AN, Granai CO, Rose PG, Hainsworth J, Lopez A, Weissman C, Rosales R, Sharpington T (2000) Phase II study of liposomal doxorubicin in platinum- and paclitaxel-refractory epithelial ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 18(17):3093–3100

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gordon KB, Tajuddin A, Guitart J, Kuzel TM, Eramo LR, VonRoenn J (1995) Hand–foot syndrome associated with liposome-encapsulated doxorubicin therapy. Cancer 75(8):2169–2173

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Halford S, Yip D, Karapetis CS, Strickland AH, Steger A, Khawaja HT, Harper PG (2001) A phase II study evaluating the tolerability and efficacy of CAELYX (liposomal doxorubicin, doxil) in the treatment of unresectable pancreatic carcinoma. Ann Oncol 12(10):1399–1402

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Heo YS, Chang HM, Kim TW, Ryu MH, Ahn JH, Kim SB, Lee JS, Kim WK, Cho HK, Kang YK (2004) Hand–foot syndrome in patients treated with capecitabine-containing combination chemotherapy. J Clin Pharmacol 44(10):1166–1172

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hussain S, Anderson DN, Salvatti ME, Adamson B, McManus M, Braverman AS (2000) Onycholysis as a complication of systemic chemotherapy: report of five cases associated with prolonged weekly paclitaxel therapy and review of the literature. Cancer 88(10):2367–2371

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Israel VP, Garcia A, Roman L, Muderspach L (1999) Phase II study of liposomal doxorubicin in advanced gynecologic cancers. Gynecol Oncol 78:143–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Korac B, Buzadzic B (2001) Doxorubicin toxicity to the skin: possibility of protection with antioxidants enriched yeast. J Dermatol Sci 25(1):45–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Link CJ Jr, Sarosy GA, Kohn EC, Christian MC, Davis P, Adamo DO, Reed E (1995) Cutaneous manifestations of Taxol therapy. Invest New Drugs 13(3):261–263

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lopez AM, Wallace L, Dorr RT, Koff M, Hersh EM, Alberts DS (1999) Topical DMSO treatment for pegylated liposomal doxorubicin-induced palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 44(4):303–306

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lotem M, Hubert A, Lyass O, Goldenhersh MA, Ingber A, Peretz T, Gabizon A (2000) Skin toxic effects of polyethylene glycol-coated liposomal doxorubicin. Arch Dermatol 136(12):1475–1480

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Makris A, Mortimer P, Powles TJ (1996) Chemotherapy-induced onycholysis. Eur J Cancer 32A(2):374–375

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Molpus KL, Anderson LB, Craig CL, Puleo JG (2004) The effect of regional cooling on toxicity associated with intravenous infusion of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in recurrent ovarian carcinoma. Gynecol Oncol 93(2):513–516

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Muggia FM, Hainsworth JD, Jeffers S, Miller P, Groshen S, Tan M, Roman L, Uziely B, Muderspach L, Garcia A, Burnett A, Greco FA, Morrow CP, Paradiso LJ, Liang LJ (1997) Phase II study of liposomal doxorubicin in refractory ovarian cancer: antitumor activity and toxicity modification by liposomal encapsulation. J Clin Oncol 15(3):987–993

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. NCI (1999) Common Toxicity Criteria, Version 2.0. 2.0 ed: http://ctep.info.nih.gov

  28. Obermair A, Binder M, Barrada M, Bancher-Todesca D, Asseryanis E, Kubista E (1998) Onycholysis in patients treated with docetaxel. Ann Oncol 9(2):230–231

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Oskay-Oezcelik G, Lehmacher W, Könsgen D, Christ H, Kaufmann M, Lichtenegger W, Sehouli J (2007) Breast cancer patients’ expectations in respect of the physician–patient relationship and treatment management results of a survey of 617 patients. Ann Oncol 18(3):479–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Park YH, Ryoo BY, Lee HJ, Kim SA, Chung JH (2003) High incidence of severe hand–foot syndrome during capecitabine–docetaxel combination chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 14(11):1691–1692

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Rose PG, Maxson JH, Fusco N, Mossbruger K, Rodriguez M (2001) Liposomal doxorubicin in ovarian, peritoneal, and tubal carcinoma: a retrospective comparative study of single-agent dosages. Gynecol Oncol 82(2):323–328

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Salzberg M, Herrmann R (2000) Hand–foot syndrome (palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia). Schweiz Med Wochenschr 130(40):1413–1416

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Sehouli J, Oskay-Oezcelik G (2004) Biweekly schedule of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) induces low rates of skin toxicities: results of a phase-II trial in heavily preteated patients with relapsed ovarian cancer. ASCO 2004

  34. Smorenburg CH, Bontenbal M, Seynaeve C, van Zuylen C, de Heus G, Verweij J, de Wit R (2001) Phase II study of weekly gemcitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer relapsing or failing both an anthracycline and a taxane. Breast Cancer Res Treat 66(1):83–87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Susser WS, Whitaker-Worth DL, Grant-Kels JM (1999) Mucocutaneous reactions to chemotherapy. J Am Acad Dermatol 40(3):367–398 (quiz 399–400)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Tejada-Berges T, Granai CO, Gordinier M, Gajewski W (2002) Caelyx/doxil for the treatment of metastatic ovarian and breast cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2(2):143–150

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We wish to thank the patients who participated in this trial. Without their enthusiastic collaboration, this work would not have been possible.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Charité, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, University Hospital, Berlin, Germany

    Mark Hackbarth, Norbert Haas, Christina Fotopoulou, Werner Lichtenegger & Jalid Sehouli

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Charité, Campus Virchow-Clinic, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany

    Jalid Sehouli

Authors
  1. Mark Hackbarth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Norbert Haas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christina Fotopoulou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Werner Lichtenegger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jalid Sehouli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jalid Sehouli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hackbarth, M., Haas, N., Fotopoulou, C. et al. Chemotherapy-induced dermatological toxicity: frequencies and impact on quality of life in women’s cancers. Results of a prospective study. Support Care Cancer 16, 267–273 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-007-0318-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-007-0318-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation