Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Case Report
Case series
Editorial
Erratum
Guest Editorial
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Media and News
Medial Education
Medical Education
Obituary
Opinion Article
Original Article
Review Article
Short Communication
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Case Report
Case series
Editorial
Erratum
Guest Editorial
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Media and News
Medial Education
Medical Education
Obituary
Opinion Article
Original Article
Review Article
Short Communication
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Case Report
Case series
Editorial
Erratum
Guest Editorial
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Media and News
Medial Education
Medical Education
Obituary
Opinion Article
Original Article
Review Article
Short Communication
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Letter to the Editor
ARTICLE IN PRESS
doi:
10.25259/IJPP_126_2025

Breaking barriers: The impact of targeted cancer treatments on skin health

Department of Dermatology, Civil Hospital, Nabha, Punjab, India.

*Corresponding author: Sharang Gupta, Department of Dermatology, Government Medical College, Patiala, Punjab, India. drsharanggupta97@gmail.com

Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Gupta S. Breaking barriers: The impact of targeted cancer treatments on skin health. Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. doi: 10.25259/IJPP_126_2025

Dear Editor,

Targeted cancer therapies have revolutionised oncology by improving survival rates while reducing systemic toxicities compared to conventional chemotherapy. These therapies, designed to selectively inhibit molecular pathways crucial for tumour progression, include epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRIs), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and B-Raf proto-oncogene,serine-threonine kinase/mitogen-activated protein kinase (BRAF/MEK) inhibitors. Despite their oncologic benefits, these agents frequently induce cutaneous adverse effects, significantly affecting patients’ quality of life and treatment adherence.[1,2]

The skin barrier, primarily maintained by the stratum corneum, serves as a critical defence against transepidermal water loss, microbial invasion and environmental insults. Disruptions to this barrier increase susceptibility to xerosis, pruritus, inflammatory eruptions and secondary infections, all of which are commonly observed in patients undergoing targeted therapies.[3,4] Cutaneous toxicities may necessitate dose modifications or therapy discontinuation, highlighting the need for early recognition and effective management strategies. This manuscript critically examines the impact of targeted therapies on skin barrier function, elucidates underlying mechanisms of dermatologic toxicity and discusses evidence-based approaches for mitigation.

MECHANISMS OF SKIN BARRIER DYSFUNCTION IN TARGETED CANCER THERAPY

EGFRIs

EGFRIs such as erlotinib, gefitinib, cetuximab and panitumumab are integral in the management of non-small cell lung cancer, colorectal cancer and head-and-neck malignancies. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signalling plays a fundamental role in keratinocyte proliferation, differentiation and epidermal homeostasis. Inhibition of this pathway disrupts epidermal renewal, leading to impaired wound healing, reduced sebum production and alterations in the stratum corneum composition. The hallmark dermatologic adverse event associated with EGFRIs is an acneiform eruption, typically presenting within the first 2–4 weeks of treatment. Unlike acne vulgaris, this papulopustular rash lacks comedones and is characterised by significant inflammation and compromised skin integrity.[5,6]

In addition, EGFRIs have been associated with PRIDE syndrome - an acronym describing papulopustules and/or paronychia, regulatory abnormalities of hair growth, itching and dryness due to EGFR inhibitors. PRIDE complex reflects a constellation of cutaneous toxicities that collectively underscore EGFR’s role in epidermal maintenance and repair.[7]

ICIs

ICIs, including programmed cell death-1 inhibitors (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 inhibitors (ipilimumab), modulate immune responses to enhance antitumor activity. These agents are associated with immune-mediated dermatologic toxicities, including lichenoid dermatitis, psoriasis-like eruptions and severe eczema. The underlying mechanism involves immune system hyperactivation, resulting in increased inflammation and epidermal barrier dysfunction. Studies indicate that ICIs downregulate filaggrin expression, leading to defective stratum corneum integrity, increased permeability and heightened susceptibility to allergens and irritants.[8,9]

BRAF and MEK inhibitors

BRAF inhibitors (vemurafenib and dabrafenib) and MEK inhibitors (trametinib and cobimetinib) are widely used in melanoma patients harbouring BRAF mutations. These agents paradoxically activate the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway in keratinocytes, leading to hyperkeratosis, keratosis pilaris and an increased risk of secondary cutaneous malignancies, particularly squamous cell carcinoma. In addition, BRAF and MEK inhibitors interfere with epidermal lipid metabolism, contributing to severe xerosis, fissuring and increased susceptibility to infections.[10,11]

Clinical manifestations of skin barrier dysfunction

Targeted therapy-induced barrier dysfunction manifests clinically with a variety of dermatologic findings. Common presentations include xerosis, pruritus, acneiform and eczematous eruptions and increased infection susceptibility. The severity of these conditions often correlates with therapy duration and specific drug class. For instance, EGFRIs predominantly cause papulopustular rashes, whereas ICIs are more frequently linked with lichenoid and psoriasiform eruptions.

Grading of dermatologic toxicities: the common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 5.0 provides a standardised grading system for cutaneous toxicities. Skin rash, pruritus, xerosis and other adverse effects are graded on a scale from 1 (mild) to 5 (death related to toxicity), enabling clinicians to make informed decisions regarding treatment continuation, dose adjustment or discontinuation.[12]

Management strategies for dermatologic toxicity

Optimising the management of dermatologic adverse effects is crucial for maintaining treatment adherence and patient comfort.

  1. Hydration and barrier repair: The use of emollients enriched with ceramides, humectants (urea and glycerine) and occlusive agents is essential for restoring epidermal barrier function and preventing xerosis[13]

  2. Topical corticosteroids and immunomodulators: Low- to mid-potency corticosteroids effectively mitigate inflammation associated with rashes and eczematous dermatitis. Calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and pimecrolimus) serve as alternative steroid-sparing agents

  3. Oral antihistamines and anti-inflammatory agents: These pharmacologic interventions help alleviate pruritus and inflammatory manifestations of ICIs and EGFRIs[14]

  4. Prophylactic and therapeutic antibiotics: Tetracyclines, such as doxycycline and minocycline, are commonly employed to manage EGFRI-induced papulopustular rash and prevent secondary bacterial infections[15]

  5. Photoprotection: Patients on BRAF inhibitors must adhere to stringent sun protection measures to minimise photosensitivity reactions and secondary malignancies[16]

  6. Preventive strategies Proactive management includes pre-treatment counselling, initiation of emollients from day 1 of therapy, use of gentle cleansers and prompt intervention for early signs of toxicity. Education on skin hygiene and avoidance of irritants (e.g., alcohol-based products) enhances outcomes.[17]

CONCLUSION

Targeted cancer therapies have transformed the oncologic landscape, yet their deleterious effects on skin barrier function pose significant clinical challenges. Dermatologic toxicities such as xerosis, inflammatory eruptions and secondary infections are common, often necessitating treatment modifications. Early dermatologic intervention, including barrier repair strategies, anti-inflammatory agents and prophylactic antibiotics, is critical for minimising these adverse effects and ensuring optimal patient outcomes. The use of standardised grading tools like CTCAE and a preventive approach further enhances the quality of care for affected patients. Further research is warranted to develop targeted dermatologic interventions that preserve skin integrity while maintaining the efficacy of cancer therapies.

Ethical approval:

Institutional Review Board approval is not required.

Declaration of patient consent:

Patient’s consent not required as there are no patients in this study.

Conflict of interest:

There are no conflicts of interest.

Use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for manuscript preparation:

The authors confirm that there was no use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for assisting in the writing or editing of the manuscript and no images were manipulated using AI.

Financial support and sponsorship: Nil.

References

  1. . Mechanisms of cutaneous toxicities to EGFR inhibitors. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9:857-68.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , . Clinical signs, pathophysiology and management of skin toxicity during therapy with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:1425-33.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. , , . Dermatologic adverse events from immune checkpoint inhibitors: Mechanisms and management. Oncol (Williston Park). 2016;30:858-65.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , , , et al. Cutaneous adverse events in patients with melanoma treated with anti-programmed cell death-1 therapy. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175:1290-5.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , . Cutaneous toxicities of RAF inhibitors. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:e11-8.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. , , , , , , et al. Toxicity profiles of BRAF and MEK inhibitors in melanoma: A systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:383-9.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , . Dermatologic adverse effects of EGFR inhibitors: PRIDE syndrome and beyond. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022;33:737-42.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , . Dermatologic reactions to targeted cancer therapy: Advancing the field. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:e134-45.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , , , , et al. Cutaneous immune-related adverse events in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors. Br J Dermatol. 2019;181:1236-42.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. , , , , , , et al. The role of emollients and moisturizers in chemotherapy-induced xerosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82:125-32.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , . Immune mechanisms underlying targeted therapy-induced skin adverse reactions. J Invest Dermatol. 2019;139:726-34.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. . Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0 [Internet] . Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute; Available from: https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/CTCAE_v5_Quick_Reference_8.5x11.pdf [Last accessed on 2025 May 10]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. , , , , , , et al. Prophylactic tetracyclines in EGFR inhibitor-induced rash: A double-blind, randomized trial. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:9-12.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. , , , , , , et al. Management of pruritus in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Immunother Cancer. 2021;9:e001632.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. , , , , , , et al. Cutaneous toxicities of targeted therapies and their management. Int J Dermatol. 2020;59:919-28.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. , , , , , , et al. Sun protection practices in patients receiving BRAF inhibitor therapy: A multicenter study. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2018;11:36-42.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. , , , , . Preventive dermatologic care in oncologic targeted therapy: A practical approach. Clin Transl Oncol. 2023;25:12-20.
    [Google Scholar]
Show Sections

Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology

Copyright Form


Title of the Manuscript: ________________________________________


I/We certify that I/we have participated sufficiently in the intellectual content, conception, and design of this work, or the analysis and interpretation of the data (when applicable), as well as the writing of the manuscript, to take public responsibility for it. I/We agree to have my/our name(s) listed as contributors and confirm that the manuscript represents valid work.

Each author confirms they meet the criteria for authorship as established by the ICMJE. Neither this manuscript nor one with substantially similar content under my/our authorship has been published or is being considered for publication elsewhere, except as described in the covering letter.

I/We certify that all data collected during the study is presented in this manuscript and that no data from the study has been or will be published separately. I/We agree to provide, upon request by the editors, any data/information on which the manuscript is based for examination by the editors or their assignees.

I/We have disclosed all financial interests, direct or indirect, that exist or may be perceived to exist for individual contributors in connection with the content of this manuscript in the cover letter. Sources of outside support for the project are also disclosed in the cover letter.

In accordance with open access principles, I/we grant the Journal the exclusive right to publish and distribute this work under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike (CC BY-NC-SA) license. This license permits others to distribute, transform, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for non-commercial purposes, provided appropriate credit is given to the creator(s). Any adaptations must be shared under the same license terms. The key elements of the CC BY-NC-SA license are:

  • BY: Credit must be given to the original creator(s).
  • NC: Only non-commercial uses of the work are permitted.
  • SA: Adaptations must be shared under the same license terms.

I/We retain academic rights to the material, and the Journal is authorized to:

  1. Grant permission to republish the article in whole or in part, with or without fee.
  2. Produce preprints or reprints and translate the work into other languages for sale or free distribution.
  3. Republish the work in a collection of articles in any mechanical or electronic format.

I/We give the rights to the corresponding author to make necessary changes as requested by the Journal, handle all correspondence on our behalf, and act as the guarantor for the manuscript.

All individuals who have made substantial contributions to the work but do not meet the criteria for authorship are named in the Acknowledgment section with their written permission. If no acknowledgment is provided, it signifies that no substantial contributions were made by non-authors.


Name of the author(s) Signature Date signed Corresponding author?
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No