4.2 Article

Compliance and Effective Manapement of the Hand-Foot Syndrome in Colon Cancer Patients Receiving Capecitabine as Adjuvant Chemotherapy

期刊

YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 50, 期 6, 页码 796-802

出版社

YONSEI UNIV COLL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2009.50.6.796

关键词

Colon neoplasm; capecitabine; compliance; side effects; hand erythema; foot erythema

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Physicians and oncology nurses must continue to update their knowledge on treatment and treatment-related side effects, while searching for effective methods to prevent or manage side effects. The objective of our study was to describe the incidence and response to treatment of the hand-foot syndrome (HFS) and the compliance with treatment of patients with stage IIB, IIIA, IIIB, and MC colon cancer that were treated with capecitabine alone as adjuvant therapy. Materials and Methods: Between September 2005 and September 2006, 84 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in this retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Results: The treatment compliance rate was 90.5% (76 out of the 84 patients). The HFS developed in 65 patients (77.4%). Thirty-three patients (50.7%) had grade I HFS, 22 patients (33.8%) had grade 2 HFS and 10 patients (15.5%) had grade 3 HFS, as their most severe episode. For Grade I patients, the dose was maintained, and skin barrier cream and moist exposed burn ointment (MEBO) were applied. For Grade 2 patients, either the dose was maintained or 25% of the dose was reduced; MEBO and supportive care were provided. For Grade 3 patients, one cycle of chemotherapy was interrupted followed by dose adjustment; MEBO and supportive care were provided. Conclusion: HFS is manageable if both patients and oncology care teams are educated about HFS associated with capecitabine. The HFS is treated by patient education, preventive management, ointment application, conservative management, dose reduction, and interruption of chemotherapy administration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据