Affiliation:
1. I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), V.A. Rakhmanov Department of Skin and Venereal Diseases, Moscow, Russian Federation
2. Institute of Personalized Oncology, Center for Digital Biodesign and Personalized Healthcare, Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University), Moscow, Russia
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, colorectal cancer is the third most diagnosed cancer [1] with an increased incidence of 1.93 million cases in 2020 according to WHO. Approximately one quarter of the initial manifestations of colorectal cancer are metastatic, and 40-50% of individuals with early-stage disease eventually develop metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) [2]. Targeted drugs, which include epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRi), are a frequent choice in the therapy of mCRC. Clinical observations and in vivo studies have established a significant association between the administration of EGFRi drugs and skin inflammation, particularly acute in the first 3 months. However, the role of proinflammatory cytokines in the formation of severe skin lesions has not been definitively studied. Here we present clinical evidence of the involvement of a few cytokines in the formation of the pathologic cascade of reactions during EGFR blockade on keratinocyte membranes.
AIMS: Evaluation of changes in cytokine profile parameters based on the MILLIPLEX Analyte MAP panel to identify predictors of the severity of unwanted skin toxicity associated with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the HCYTMAG-60K-PX41MILLIPLEX® Human Cytokine/Chemokine Magnetic Bead Panel Premixed 41 Plex (EMD Millipore Corporation, USA) in combination with the MAGPIX instrument (Luminex Corporation, USA), 81 sera from patients with varying severity of cutaneous toxicity (CT) following EGFRi administration for mCRPC and lung cancer were analysed. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the severity of CT as determined by the NCI CTCAE scale of the US National Cancer Institute [3]
Statistical processing of data was performed using the R 4.3.1 programming language and the packages tidyverse, rstatix. A value of P0.05 was considered significant to determine differences. N-values for the experimental group were determined using power analysis based on our preliminary data.
RESULTS: Blood serum samples from 81 patients aged 18-80 years who were taking EGFRi for oncologic disease and had adverse dermatologic reactions of severity 2 or more were analyzed. The data were analyzed using SPSS software and R 4.3.1 programming language and tidyverse, rstatix packages. Detected changes with p0.05 were analyzed considering subgroup analysis on the basis of selected CT severity degrees based on the criteria developed by the US National Cancer Institute NCI-CTC v.4.
CONCLUSIONS:
Blocking of EGF receptor inhibits the expression and release of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which is the main inducer of vascular proliferation, the consequence of which is inflammation of vascular endothelium of skin capillaries. Significant increase of IFN- γ and decrease of IF- α 2 level was found in patients with manifestations of skin toxicity of 2 and more severity degree. Also, a significant criterion of severity of the skin process was an increase in the level of TNF-α. At such dissociation there is induction of STING protein (interferon gene stimulator) and increase of TNF-
b
production that, in its turn, leads to increase of concentration of proinflammatory cytokines G-CSF, GM-CSF, IFNα2, IFNγ, IL-15, IL-17A, IL-1β, IL-3, IL-6, IL-8, IP-10, TNFα, TGF-α, IL-9. This contributes not only to the maintenance of tissue inflammation, but also to the formation of a vicious circle leading to an increase in the severity of class-mediated inflammatory response against the background of further EGFRi administration. Determination of predictors of severity of adverse dermatologic reactions is extremely important for predicting the development of severity and further personalized tactics for correction of adverse events.
Reference23 articles.
1. World Health Organisation Cancer Fact Sheet https://www.who.int/ru/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer обращение 3 марта 2021 г.
2. Moriarity A, O’Sullivan J, Kennedy J, Mehigan B, McCormick P. Current targeted therapies in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: a review. Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 8(4), 276–293 (2016).
3. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), Version 5.0, November 2017, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Available at: https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/CTCAE_v5_Quick_Reference_8.5x11.pdf (Accessed March 27, 2018)
4. Lacouture ME, Anadkat MJ, Bensadoun RJ, Bryce J, Chan A, Epstein JB, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of EGFR inhibitor-associated dermatologic toxicities. Support Care Cancer 2011;19:1079–95.
5. Lacouture ME. Mechanisms of cutaneous toxicities to EGFR inhibi- tors. nat Rev Cancer 2006;6:803–12.