Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRIs)have demonstrated improved overall survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, and colorectal cancer; however, their use is associated with dermatologic reactions of varying severity. The similar spectrum of events observed with monoclonal antibodies and tyrosine kinase inhibitors suggests such toxicities are a class effect. While such reactions do not necessarily require any alteration in EGFRI treatment, being best addressed through symptomatic treatment, there is limited evidence on which to base such therapies. In October 2006, at an international and interdisciplinary EGFRI dermatologic toxicity forum, the underlying mechanisms of these toxicities were discussed and commonly used therapeutic interventions were evaluated. Our aim was to reach a current consensus on management strategies. A three-tiered, EGFRIfocused toxicity grading system is suggested for the purposes of therapeutic decision making, and as a framework on which to build a stepwise approach to intervention. This approach to successful management is specifically tailored to accurately categorize dermatologic toxicity associated with EGFRIs, and can be easily applied by all health care professionals. The goal is to maximize quality of life in patients who are being treated with these agents-many of whom will be on these drugs for several months or even years. The Oncologist 2007;12:610 -621 Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest is found at the end of this article.

There is a lack of clinical tools to facilitate communication between clinicians and patients about chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) has developed such a tool, which is an eight-item scale for the assessment of acute and delayed nausea and vomiting, and is completed once per cycle of chemotherapy. The aim of the current study was to assess its psychometric properties, specifically reliability and validity, cultural transferability and equivalence, and congruence with proxy assessments, as well as to determine if accuracy of recall of CINV events using the MASCC Antiemesis Tool (MAT) differed over time from chemotherapy. A prospective study was carried out with adult cancer patients and their informal carers from two hospitals, one each in the United Kingdom (UK) and United States of America (U.S.). Patients completed the Rhodes Index for nausea, vomiting and retching (INVR) daily for the first five days after chemotherapy and were then asked to complete the MAT at one week, two weeks, or three weeks after chemotherapy. Carers completed an adapted MAT concurrently with patients. The sample consisted of 87 patients and 22 informal carers. The internal consistency reliability of the scale was high, with Cronbach alphas of 0.77 (patient sample) and 0.82 (carer sample). Responses were similar between the UK and U.S. samples in terms of nausea and vomiting, and both samples found the scale easy to use. Contrasted-groups validity (using age as a grouping variable) and concurrent validity (MAT compared with INVR) suggested that the scale is sensitive to detect the different dimensions of CINV and performed well against a daily assessment of nausea/vomiting (total score correlation r=0.86, P<0.001). Recall of events was high even three weeks after chemotherapy (correlations with INVR of 0.44-0.99, all P<0.01). Factor analysis clearly identified three factors, namely vomiting, acute nausea, and delayed nausea. Proxy assessments by carers were congruent with the patients' responses, especially in relation to vomiting. The MAT is a reliable, valid, clear, and easy-to-use clinical tool that could facilitate discussion between clinicians and patients about their nausea and vomiting experience, thereby potentially aiding treatment decisions. Regular assessment of nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy has the potential to significantly improve CINV management.

A grading scale specific to EGFR inhibitor dermatologic AEs is presented for formal integration into future versions of CTCAE and for validation in clinical trial settings. The study group designed this scale to detect and report EGFRI-related toxicities with greater sensitivity, specificity, and range than the scales currently used. This scale should serve as a foundation for efforts to perform objective interdrug comparisons and assessments of supportive care treatment strategies more effectively than with current methods.