Management of human epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors‐related acneiform rash: A position paper based on the first Europe/<scp>USA</scp> Delphi consensus process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a need for unified guidance in the management of acneiform rash induced by epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRi) among dermatologists. OBJECTIVE: To establish unified international guidelines for the management of acneiform rash caused by EGFR inhibitors, based on an experts' Delphi consensus. METHODS: The initiative was led by five members of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Force 'Dermatology for Cancer Patients' who developed a questionnaire that was circulated to a group of 32 supportive oncodermatology experts in Europe, Canada, Argentina, the US States and Asia. The questionnaire consisted of 84 statements in total, regarding diagnosis and treatment of EGFRi-induced acneiform rash. Experts responded to an anonymous 5-point Likert scale survey. The coordinators collected the first-round responses that were checked for consensus (≥75% agreement in positive [agree or strongly agree] or in negative [disagree or strongly disagree] vote). The statements that did not reach strong consensus in the first round were revised, according to experts' feedback, for a second-round survey. RESULTS: Strong consensus was reached in 75/84 (89.3%) of the statements, whilst moderate consensus was achieved in 6/84 elements. Key points include consideration of low-dose isotretinoin for refractory grade II/III acneiform rash, use of topical steroid-sparing agents like topical pimecrolimus in the maintenance phase and use of doxycycline in either 100 or 200 mg per day as prophylactic treatment. Interestingly, experts did not recommend topical antibiotics, neither for prevention, nor for treatment. Consensus failure in 3/84 objects is mostly related to the lack of robust data on these topics. CONCLUSION: This consensus offers crucial insights often overlooked by radiotherapists, general practitioners, dermatologists and oncologists, and it is expected to improve the management of oncologic patients treated with EGFRi in different settings and continents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.188 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".