ReviewSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Comparing clinical practice guidelines on the prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced hand-foot syndrome.
Review in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
backgroundHand-foot syndrome (HFS) is a common side effect of chemotherapy drugs such as 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine, impairing daily function and quality of life. This study aimed to compare international clinical guidelines regarding assessment and management of HFS to identify areas of consensus and divergence and evidence gaps.
methodsGuidelines were identified through PubMed (from inception to February 2025), with a supplementary search on Google. Only the most recent versions of English guidelines were included. Data extraction focused on the guideline methodology and recommendations on the prevention, assessment, and management of HFS. Each guideline was critically appraised using the AGREE II checklist.
resultsSix guidelines were identified authored by the following cancer agencies: British Columbia Cancer (BCC), European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), Cancer Institute NSW (eviQ), Oncology Nursing Society (ONS), United Kingdom Oncology Nursing Society and Acute Oncology (UKONS AO), and United Kingdom North Cancer Alliance (UKNCA). Regarding prevention, five of six guidelines (83%) advised avoiding chemical and physical stressors to the hands and feet and using alcohol-free moisturizer. Only ESMO, BCC, and eviQ recommended oral celecoxib to prevent capecitabine-induced HFS. ESMO and ONS recommended cooling procedures to prevent taxane-induced HFS. Likewise, BCC and eviQ recommend cooling procedures for all agents. All guidelines except ONS recommended dose suspension with grade 2 or 3 HFS and continuation when resolved or improved. ESMO and BCC recommended topical corticosteroids for grade 1 HFS, ESMO for grade 2 or 3, and eviQ for prophylactic use. Finally, BCC and ESMO suggested to consider oral dexamethasone for PEGylated doxorubicin-induced HFS.
conclusionWhile general skin care and dose modification guideline recommendations were consistent, pharmacological recommendations varied. Guidelines are key for healthcare professionals in supporting patients with HFS. Therefore, regular updates with emerging evidence for interventions such as topical diclofenac are needed to ensure the quality of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42189295What 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.