ArticleDermatology and therapy2019
A National Survey of Medical Oncologist's Opinions and Perceptions for Managing Rash Among mCRC Patients Treated with Panitumumab.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perspectives on managing skin manifestations in cancer patients: a multidisciplinary mixed-method survey of oncologists and dermatologists.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Mitigation and management of adverse events associated with amivantamab therapy.The oncologist · 2025Review
- Navigating metastatic colorectal treatment options in the USA: a survey of patient acceptance of skin toxicities associated with Vectibix.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Supportive oncodermatology-a narrative review of its utility and the way forward.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to describe medical oncologist's opinions and perceptions regarding the management of dermatologic toxicities among metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients who were treated with panitumumab in the USA and assess if there were differences across demographic and clinical characteristics.
methodsWe developed a survey based on the current literature and expert opinions regarding the management of dermatologic toxicities. The survey was implemented online in September 2016. Eligible oncologists were board certified and had treated at least five new or continuing patients with mCRC in the last 3 months, among whom at least three patients had received or were currently receiving panitumumab.
resultsA total of 250 oncologists completed the survey. The data suggest that approximately 82% of patients received recommendations for moisturizer, 88% for sunscreen and 67% for ultraviolet (UV)-protective garments prior to or at the time of initiation of panitumumab therapy. There were minor differences in how dermatologic toxicities were managed across specific demographic or clinical groups. The data also suggest that the management associated with panitumumab use among mCRC patients can be greatly improved.
conclusionsOur results highlight the urgent need for heightened education regarding dermatologic toxicity management among oncologists who treated mCRC patients with panitumumab. Easily implemented strategies, such as moisturizer, sunscreen, and UV-protective garments should be recommended to all patients.
fundingAmgen, Inc. Plain language summary available for this article.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.