Skin reactions due to radiotherapy and chemotherapy are a significant problem for an important number of cancer patients. While effective for treating cancer, they disturb cutaneous barrier function, causing a reaction soon after initiation of treatment that impacts patient quality of life. Managing these symptoms with cosmetics and nonpharmaceutical skin care products for camouflage or personal hygiene may be important for increasing patient self-esteem. However, inappropriate product choice or use could worsen side effects. Although recommendations exist for the pharmaceutical treatment of skin reactions, there are no recommendations for the choice or use of dermatologic skin care products for oncology patients. The present guidelines were developed by a board of European experts in dermatology and oncology to provide cancer care professionals with guidance for the appropriate use of non-pharmaceutical, dermocosmetic skin care management of cutaneous toxicities associated with radiotherapy and systemic chemotherapy, including epidermal growth factor inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. The experts hope that these recommendations will improve the management of cutaneous side effects and hence quality of life for oncology patients.

Currently, numerous patients who receive targeted chemotherapy for cancer suffer from disabling skin reactions due to cutaneous toxicity, which is a significant problem for an increasing number of patients and their treating physicians. In addition, using inappropriate personal hygiene products often worsens these otherwise manageable side-effects. Cosmetic products for personal hygiene and lesion camouflage are part of a patients’ well-being and an increasing number of physicians feel that they do not have adequate information to provide effective advice on concomitant cosmetic therapy. Although ample information is available in the literature on pharmaceutical treatment for cutaneous side-effects of chemotherapy, little is available for the concomitant use of dermatological skin-care products with medical treatments. The objective of this consensus study is to provide an algorithm for the appropriate use of dermatological cosmetics in the management of cutaneous toxicities associated with targeted chemotherapy such as epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors and other monoclonal antibodies. These guidelines were developed by a French and German expert group of dermatologists and an oncologist for oncologists and primary care physicians who manage oncology patients. The information in this report is based on published data and the expert group’s opinion. Due to the current lack of clinical evidence, only a review of published recommendations including suggestions for concomitant cosmetic use was conducted.

Although cemiplimab has been approved for locally advanced (la) and metastatic (m) cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas (CSCCs), its real-life value has not yet been demonstrated. An early-access program enrolled patients with la/mCSCCs to receive cemiplimab. Endpoints were best overall response rate (BOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR) and safety. The 245 patients (mean age 77 years, 73% male, 49% prior systemic treatment, 24% immunocompromised, 27% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) ≥ 2) had laCSCCs (35%) or mCSCCs (65%). For the 240 recipients of ≥1 infusion(s), the BOR was 50.4% (complete, 21%; partial, 29%). With median follow-up at 12.6 months, median PFS was 7.9 months, and median OS and DOR were not reached. One-year OS was 73% versus 36%, respectively, for patients with PS < 2 versus ≥ 2. Multivariate analysis retained PS ≥ 2 as being associated during the first 6 months with PFS and OS. Head-and-neck location was associated with longer PFS. Immune status had no impact. Severe treatment-related adverse events occurred in 9% of the patients, including one death from toxic epidermal necrolysis. Cemiplimab real-life safety and efficacy support its use for la/mCSCCs. Patients with PS ≥ 2 benefited less from cemiplimab, but it might represent an option for immunocompromised patients.

No abstract

To determine the potential steroid sparing effect of plasma exchange in pemphigus we enrolled 40 patients in a multicenter randomized study. Eighteen patients were treated by prednisolone alone, 22 by prednisolone plus ten large-volume plasma exchanges over four weeks. All patients received oral prednisolone in the same initial dosage (0.5 mg/kg/d), which was increased weekly if needed. The number of cases controlled at each therapeutic step did not differ between the two groups. In eight cases, four in each group, the disease was not controlled by the highest therapeutic step of the protocol, with four deaths from sepsis in the plasma exchange group. The controlled cases needed similar cumulative prednisolone doses (5237 +/- 5512 mg in the plasma exchange group vs 4246 +/- 1601 mg in the control group). The evolution of serum pemphigus antibody was not different in the two groups. These findings suggest that plasma exchange in association with low steroid doses alone are not effective in the treatment of pemphigus and may even promote sepsis.